Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:08:50 -0500 From: "Marty Leisner" <leisner@rochester.rr.com> To: Sheldon Hearn <axl@iafrica.com> Cc: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) Message-ID: <199902010408.XAA01185@rochester.rr.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:27:00 %2B0200." <88592.917598420@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:55:21 EST, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > > Everybody's goal is to keep/make code readable (accusations of "trying > > to obfuscate" are silly). You, people, are just not agreeing what > > "readable" means. Hoping to aid in the ending of this thread(s), > > Thank you very much. This is _exactly_ the point here. > > As far as I see it, there are a lot of people who are saying > > "I want to use parens to improve readability" > > when what they really mean is > > "I want to use parens to obviate the need to learn operator precedence." > > I can't imagine how unnecessary parens are going to improve > "readability" for anyone who knows his/her operator precedence. What > it does is allow folks who aren't sure about what they're doing to get > around doing things properly. > > Ciao, > Sheldon. > If you use paranthesis, you don't have to memorize the operator precedence. People are not compilers, unnecessary parenthesis/braces is usally a good idea where there could be some confusion. In our work place we have a policy of extra braces around single line ifs...the idea is people often add lines in maintaince, and forget to add the braces...I think its a good argument for maintability... Marty Leisner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902010408.XAA01185>