Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!chem.ucsd.edu!tps
From: tps@chem.ucsd.edu (Tom Stockfisch)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: A question of style
Message-ID: <621@chem.ucsd.EDU>
Date: 10 Dec 89 05:52:48 GMT
References: <1989Nov23.170838.10376@phri.nyu.edu> <680014@hpmwjaa.HP.COM> <257E97F4.24962@ateng.com>
Reply-To: tps@chem.ucsd.edu (Tom Stockfisch)
Organization: Chemistry Dept, UC San Diego
Lines: 36

In article <257E97F4.24962@ateng.com> chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to jeffa@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Jeff Aguilera):
>>I understand (and accept) that most programmers are compelled to use the K&R
>>form, following their masters' dogma blindly, criticizing all others.

>A construct's being quickly identifiable by most C programmers makes that
>thing immediately preferable to an equivalent but less common construct.
>And if there's one book a C programmer has almost certainly read, it's K&R.

I think the point here is that style evolves, and wouldn't if people never
strayed from K&R.  For instance, what if I justified my use of
	
	while (*s++ = *t++)
		;

by quoting K&R (I p. 101, II p. 106)?

>The general rule I adhere to most strictly is:  "Repetition is evil."
>...  The expression
>"c=getchar(), c!=EOF" is harder to read than "(c = getchar()) != EOF" for
>the same reason.

Perhaps it is just because I have never learned lisp, but what *I* find
most difficult to read are multiple sets of parentheses.  Even though
I have never used Jeff's form before in a "while" construct, I still found
it easier to read than the "standard" notation.  The repetition is
just one character here ("c"), and very close by.  Am I the only person
who is slowed down by lots of parentheses?

Just in case what I have said so far doesn't generate any flames, I'll
offer what I would write for this case:

	for ( c = getchar(); c != EOF; c = getchar() )
-- 

|| Tom Stockfisch, UCSD Chemistry	tps@chem.ucsd.edu