Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!talon.UCS.ORST.EDU!usenet!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!inews!hopi!bhoughto
From: bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: One more point regarding = and == (more flamage)
Message-ID: <3477@inews.intel.com>
Date: 27 Mar 91 03:54:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: inews.3477
References: <925@isgtec.UUCP>
Sender: news@inews.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ
Lines: 33

In article <925@isgtec.UUCP> robert@isgtec.UUCP writes:
>In article <355@smds.UUCP>, rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>|> Re:
>|>  a) while (*foo++ = *bar++)
>|>  b) while (*foo ++ == *bar++)
>|>  c) while ((*foo++ = *bar++) != 0)
>|> 
>|> Sundry claims have been made that (c) is "good style" versus (a).  The
>|> original objection was couched in terms of "testing on assignment inside
>|> conditionals is bad form".  IMNSHO most of the arguments and dogmatic
>|> statements are so much rubbish.
>Well the biggest argument has been if you use a) the maintainer can't tell
>if you meant a) or b);  if you use c) the maintainer KNOWS you meant a).
>This isn't rubbish.

I was considering this just this morning, and came to the
conclusion that (1) any maintainer that dumb still has no clue
about b); and, (2) a lot of repetitive stylistics become
mechanized, and it's easy to type that != 0 when you don't
really mean it, at 4:30am, when you're down to chewing the
styrofoam cup from your last cup of coffee...

So in the first case it's only half a fix (properly glued-down
comments are whole and beautiful), and in the second it's
seven extra characters waiting for lint2000(1) to grok their
precisely _intended_ place in the universe.

I have new lollipops screen-printed with calligraphic images
of c) for those humans who are also waiting for such a lint...

				--Blair
				  "Ahh, 4:30am.  It's traditionally
				   when most fortuitous errors occur..."