Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!ron
From: ron@topaz.rutgers.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Writing readable code
Message-ID: <13008@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 29-Jun-87 11:46:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.13008
Posted: Mon Jun 29 11:46:12 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Jun-87 04:23:16 EDT
References: <1158@copper.TEK.COM> <6858@auspyr.UUCP> <17171@cca.CCA.COM> <22250@sun.uucp> <17193@cca.CCA.COM>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 40

I have always wondered why people think NULL is more mnemonic than 0.
When I read them as exactly the same (and fortunately in C, they are
defined to be).  I also wonder about people who define TRUE to be any
thing, since it leads to things like
	if( bool == TRUE )
which is different than
	if(!bool)

Generally, I use !p when I'm dealing with things that are supposed
boolean values like

	if(!isdigit(c))

and comparison to zero for things that are supposed to be returning
a value
	if( malloc(100) == 0 )


MY PET PEEVES:

1.  Comparing error returns from UNIX syscalls to be less than zero.
    UNIX system calls that return ints, are usually defined to return
    -1 on error.  It drives me crazy to see code test for less than
    zero.  It doesn't say returns negative value on error, it says
    -1.

2.  Needless use of the comma operator and parenthesis to demonstrate
    manhood to the obliteration of code readability, e.g.

	    if((fd=open("foo",1)<0)

    SCREW this, too difficult, how about writing the code to indicate
    what is going on:

	    fd = open("foo", 1);
	    if(fd == -1)

-Ron