Ladavac Marino once stated:
=> =Whilst the official codebase may be under the control of a select
=> =group of committers, the code should be capable of being understood
=> by
=> =anyone who is reasonably proficient with C.
=>
=> Depends on your definition of "reasonably", Mr. Special Counselor...
= [ML]
= I see no cause for name calling.
I'm sorry, I did not mean "name calling". I was making a joke
refering to the America's infamous senior public official talking
to a certain Special Counsel (or Independent Counsel).
= And, guess what, none of these languages have the same
= operator precedence as C/C++. But they all have
= parentheses. Knowledge of operator precedence as a
= metric of programming proficience--ludicrous. My brain
= would turn to pretzel if I had to know all the precedence
= rules in all the languages that I daily have to use.
I must admit, that this is the first reasonable argument I observe
in a few days of this Battle of Giants. Mostly it looks like:
-- I think, the code must be readable, therefore, we must allow
for X.
-- No, I think, the readability is very important, therefore X
should be disallowed.
= /* the reason for branching */
= if ( (a * b - c * d) < (e / f) ) {
= true_part();
= }
= else {
= false_part();
= more_false_part();
= }
= You will have noticed that I put braces around single
= statements. This has no performance penalty--a reasonable
= compiler will not create a stack frame--and helps in
= maintenance.
I'd say, I do not like this :) My first move is to remove the un-needed braces
or put `else' onto the same line as the closing brace before it (I program in
TCL
a lot). But we all 've read enough of this already.
The discussion is no longer interesting because of its subject, but rather
because of its style. And this is a whole different branch of science...
-mi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
