Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!hpda!hpihoah!hpisod2!decot
From: decot@hpisod2.HP.COM (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C test
Message-ID: <2550025@hpisod2.HP.COM>
Date: Sun, 2-Aug-87 00:16:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpisod2.2550025
Posted: Sun Aug  2 00:16:08 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Aug-87 00:50:23 EDT
References: <1090@gilsys.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 40

> Improve the following code fragment through reorganization:
> 
> {
>     if (A) { B; return; }
>     if (C) { D; return; }
>     if (E) { F; return; }
>     G; return;
> }

I have several answers to this; each would be the "right" answer depending
on who is asking the question and what hidden agenda they have.

1) Since we do not know whether the definitions, if any, of A, B, C, etc.,
   contain imbalanced syntactic tokens, there is no way to change this
   fragment without possibly breaking the code.

2) {
	if (A)
	    B;
	else if (C)
	    D;
	else if (E)
	    F;
	else
	    G;

	return;		/* If the braces enclose a complete function definition
			   rather than a nested block, this statement should
			   be deleted. */
   }

3) This is for the APL freak; it assumes B, D, F, G are expressions:

   { A?B : C?D : E?F : G; return; }

I suppose my best answer would be 2, and then 1, and then 3 (if I thought
the person was probably psychotic).

Dave Decot
hpda!decot