Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:33:09 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Cc: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> Subject: Re: c99/c++ localised variable definition Message-ID: <200502021133.09691.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050201234646.GK61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk> References: <20050128173327.GI61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <20050201230437.GD19624@funkthat.com> <20050201234646.GK61409@myrddin.originative.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 06:46 pm, Paul Richards wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 03:04:37PM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > Paul Richards wrote this message on Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 19:04 +0000: > > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 10:06:24AM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > > > > Paul Richards wrote this message on Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 10:26 +0000: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > I think the loop usage though is one clear example where it is > > > > > clearer. I think there are others as well; where the usage of the > > > > > variable is clearly localised it is much easier to see a local > > > > > definition than to have to jump back and forth to find out what > > > > > variables are. > > > > > > > > I personally think it isn't. One thing that I do in python all to > > > > regularly (because it lacks variable declarations), is attempt to do: > > > > for i in foo: > > > > for j in bar: > > > > for i in baz: > > > > > > That would work fine with c99. > > > > Depends upon your definition of working fine.. :) it doesn't work fine > > if you do: > > for i in foo: > > for j in bar: > > for i in baz: > > pass > > print i > > > > When the print i is suppose to return the element from foo, not baz, > > because you later added baz because of fixing another bug.. > > That's true. What's starting to strike me as odd about this thread is > that all the counter examples are about doing really dumb things. If > you're a second rate coder who has a tendency to do dumb things then > there's really no helping you no matter what the style is. > > Surely the issue should be, if you're a good coder and you adhere > to the adopted style, which style is more likely to result in > maintainable code. Having a different person (!author) come back to fix a problem or add a new feature to old code is not a "dumb" thing, and it would be fairly easy to overlook some details when doing that sort of thing. I think the current style is fine as it is with its current 100+ maintainers vs. elegance bias. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200502021133.09691.jhb>