Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site denelvx.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!denelcor!denelvx!neal From: neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: C Indentation Survey Results (long...) Message-ID: <24@denelvx.UUCP> Date: Wed, 8-May-85 17:11:05 EDT Article-I.D.: denelvx.24 Posted: Wed May 8 17:11:05 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 22:07:57 EDT References: <9930@brl-tgr.ARPA> <381@busch.UUCP> <5497@utzoo.UUCP> <5557@utzoo.UUCP> <1472@orca.UUCP> <497@umd5.UUCP> Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, Colorados Lines: 21 ****************************************************************************** > > And (as long as we are sharpening axes here) if you were programming in > PASCAL you could put the sucker in a WITH DEVICE clause and get rid of all > those "device->" references. AND, it would be more efficient since the > reference would only be evaluated once, at the WITH clause (clearly compiler > optimization in C compilers would have a bearing on this). > -- > Ben Cranston ...{seismo!umcp-cs,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben zben@umd2.ARPA I realize it doesn't help with the typing, but a smart compiler shouldn't have any trouble with evaluating "device" only once (as long as it's safe). I haven't used Pascal in a while. What does it do if DEVICE changes (intentionally or otherwise) in the middle of a WITH DEVICE clause? Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Blame it on the Rolling Denelcor, Inc. Stones" !denelcor!neal