Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!botter!star.cs.vu.nl!roemer
From: roemer@cs.vu.nl (Roemer Lievaart)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: comma operator
Message-ID: <2963@solo6.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 1 Aug 89 21:20:46 GMT
References: <10099@mpx2.mpx.com> <93@microsoft.UUCP> <10100@mpx2.mpx.com> <10562@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1989Jul24.194646.3012@nc386.uucp> <5630@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1989Jul28.174033.12734@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <918@helios.toronto.edu> <13184@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Organization: V.U. Informatica, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Lines: 22

tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) writes:

>If you debate the "harder to read" bit, consider this -- the comma
>essentially is like putting two statements on one line.  would you
>rather read code like:
>  puts("it broke."); exit(2);

>than:
>  puts("it broke.");
>  exit(2);

I often write:

	if (something_goes(wrong) )
		fprintf(stderr, "%s: I give up!\n", argv[0] ) ,
		exit(2) ;

Of course it's no better than using { ; }, but it's not worse either.
____________________________________________________________________________
Roemer B. Lievaart |   Some people are convinced by large gestures, but
Amsterdam, Holland |   get suspicious by arguments.
roemer@cs.vu.nl    | 				-- Nietzsche