Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!ima!necntc!frog!john
From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: = vs ==, and do 10 i = 1.3
Keywords: C, lint, checking
Message-ID: <2033@frog.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jan 88 22:30:00 GMT
References: <8971@ccicpg.UUCP> etc <887@micomvax.UUCP>
Organization: Superfrog Heaven [ CRDS, Framingham MA ]
Lines: 33

In article <887@micomvax.UUCP>, ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
> In article <8971@ccicpg.UUCP> @ccicpg.UUCP (Nick Crossley) writes:
> >The third warns about :-
> >	if	(a);
> >		stat1;
> >which is legal, but dubious
> Ah yes, and then there is, for example:
>         fn1 ("paramstring 1", 57);
>         fn2 ("paramstring 2", 23);
>         for (i = 1; i < 100; i++);
>                 fn3 (argument, i);
> Which has TWICE taken me a similar time to find (You'd think I'd learn!)
> Indentation is IGNORED by Lint and the compiler, but is superficially VERY
> significant to we visually oriented beings.  Thus the occasional problem
> in spotting the above class of errors.

As it happens, there was an article some years back in (I think) SIGPLAN
(but I'm extremely unsure) about a PASCAL compiler that had been modified
to REMOVE the begin and end keywords -- block structure was indicated by
indentation, and ONLY by indentation!

I suppose, though, that this trick would have less applicability in C, where
macros can be used to hide the keywords and even to invent blocks in the
middle of nowhere.

--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
		-- Johnny Hart