Stylistic questions on UNIX C coding.
in [Unix Programming]
|
Prev: integer
Next: shared memory question
From: Keith Thompson on 9 Mar 2010 15:45 Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> writes: [big snip] > Whatever your motivation for acting in this way might be, for as long > as you are basically attaching unrelated statements to random parts of > heavily redacted variants of texts I originally wrote, any attempt at > a 'discussion' is a waste of bandwidth. I have been honestly trying to understand what you've been saying. If you're unwilling either to help or to answer direct questions, then yes, this is a waste of bandwidth. Bye. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u(a)mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> Nokia "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
From: Seebs on 9 Mar 2010 18:25 On 2010-03-09, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: > Seebs <usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net> writes: >> On 2010-03-09, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: >>> You have again ignored this completely. >> I looked at it a bit, and it didn't seem to say much. > Cutting something away from a text and than making a summary statement > about what had been cut away is a standard tactic. It was more informative than what you did here -- which is completely ignore the technical question I asked in favor of commenting on "tactics". If all you want to do is fight, please go to alt.flame. If you want to talk about C, how about you answer my technical question: What are these two loops which you are comparing? There's been enough different loops in this thread that I have no idea which ones you're referring to. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Richard Bos on 10 Mar 2010 09:14 John Gordon <gordon(a)panix.com> wrote: > But if you had typed it this way: > > if (7 = x) > > The compiler will throw an error. So now you come to rely on this to prevent mistypes. And then you write what should be if (x == y) and you switch the operands for safety, so you write if (y = x) and because you have got completely out of the habit of paying attention to what you actually write (because, after all, if you had made a typo the compiler would have thrown an error, right?), you fail to notice the mistake even after reading that section of code thirteen times. Meanwhile, your colleague, who does not rely on such broken crutches, spots it with a single glance at the code. Richard
From: ImpalerCore on 10 Mar 2010 09:27 On Mar 10, 9:14 am, ralt...(a)xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) wrote: > John Gordon <gor...(a)panix.com> wrote: > > But if you had typed it this way: > > > if (7 = x) > > > The compiler will throw an error. > > So now you come to rely on this to prevent mistypes. > > And then you write what should be > > if (x == y) > > and you switch the operands for safety, so you write > > if (y = x) > > and because you have got completely out of the habit of paying attention > to what you actually write (because, after all, if you had made a typo > the compiler would have thrown an error, right?), you fail to notice the > mistake even after reading that section of code thirteen times. > > Meanwhile, your colleague, who does not rely on such broken crutches, > spots it with a single glance at the code. > > Richard I sometimes run a 'grep -r "if (" * | grep " = "' to review assignments in 'if' statements in my source, but most of the time, the compiler catches them if I unintentionally make a mistake.
From: Anand Hariharan on 10 Mar 2010 15:29
On Mar 4, 8:40 am, Richard <rgrd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: (...) > You dont say "if pi is larger than p".You say "if p is larger than > pi". They are not equivalent statements. ;-) |