Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdahl!drivax!braun
From: braun@drivax.UUCP (Kral)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: if (e1) return e2; [else] s1;
Message-ID: <1TWGXTN@drivax.UUCP>
Date: 28 Mar 90 16:19:01 GMT
References: <1990Mar24.010629.12764@caen.engin.umich.edu> <10624@alice.UUCP> <2637@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca>
Organization: Digital Research, Inc.
Lines: 25

In article <2637@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca> utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) writes:
>Is this reallly a clearer and neater way of coding:
>int foo()
>{
>	int ret;
>	if (cond1) {
>		/* do stuff */
>		ret=1;
>	}
>	else {
>		/* do other stuff */
>		ret=2;
>	}
>	return ret;
>}

I say yes.  In addition, it's easier to modify (say you want to do some further
processing before you return), and it's easier to debug with a debugger, as
there is only one place you have to break to stop the return.

-- 
kral 	408/647-6112			...amdahl!drivax!braun
"To surrender is to remain in the hands of barbarians for the rest of my life;
 To fight is to leave my bones exposed in the desert waste" 
		- ancient chinese poem