Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!flaps
From: flaps@utcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: compound statements
Message-ID: <1986Jul18.023314.21855@utcs.uucp>
Date: Fri, 18-Jul-86 02:33:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcs.1986Jul18.023314.21855
Posted: Fri Jul 18 02:33:14 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jul-86 04:03:02 EDT
References: <5281@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <8900039@uiucdcsb>
Reply-To: flaps@utcs.UUCP (Alan J Rosenthal)
Organization: University of Toronto
Lines: 24

In article <8900039@uiucdcsb> wsmith@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>
>Another argument for forcing the brackets on a function:
>
>You have your fancy, one statement function/procedure.   it's three
>screenfuls and you just found out that the fancy 1 statement function
>now is a two statement function.  Blech!  Now you have to find the
>beginning of the procedure, the end of the procedure and add a begin/end
>pair at the ends.

This is an argument for USING braces, not for requiring them.  This problem
is averted by you personally using braces.  This problem is not averted by
forcing other people to use braces.

Braces on a one-statement function should be optional for the same reason that
programs can compile without being able to pass lint.  I use lint myself, but
if you don't, you might as well still be able to use the compiler.

Now if functions without braces are harder to parse, that's a different
question.

--
Alan J Rosenthal
{cbosgd|ihnp4}!seismo!mnetor!utcs!flaps, utzoo!utcs!flaps