Re: lcc first experience

On May 7, 2:48 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Paul Hsieh wrote:
> > Tom=E1s =D3 h=C9ilidhe <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ... snip ...
> >> I've actually taken its advice and started doing:
> >>      if ((i=3D5)) DoWhatever();
>
> > Whenever I do that I usually write it as:
> >    if (0 !=3D (i =3D 5)) DoWhatever();
> > to make it absolutely crystal clear what I mean.
>
> FYI any non-zero integral value is taken as TRUE, while zero is
> taken as FALSE, by all C logical expressions.

Noooo ... really?!?!?

> [...] So you don't need
> the confusing extra garbage in the statement.

C is an uncommon language in that it does not require a comparison
operator in its if statements, and that all statements have side-
effects.  I specifically put a comparison operator in there to keep
all my if() statements visually consistent, and to as clearly as
possible show that *two* operations are happening in that one
expression (a comparison/control flow, and an assignment.)  The
shorthand of sma****ng all that stuff together buys you only horizontal
screen space, which is worthless.

> [...] The purpose of the
> extra parentheses is only to suppress the gcc warning.

Which is an incomplete reason for doing something.  There are many
ways to suppress this warning.  The question is how do you vacate the
real complaint that it is trying to warn you about.  The real warning
is that its visually difficult to spot the difference between =3D and
=3D=3D.  Adding the extra parenthesis doesn't literally fix this; instead
it just gives you a new pattern to try to associate with this "two
operations in one expression" paradigm.  Which is just stupid.

My method may look a little messy, but its easy to get used to and is
extremely clear.

--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed/
http://bstring.sf.net/