Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: `if (a = b)' (was Standard indentation?)
Message-ID: <2485@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 18 Dec 88 06:06:55 GMT
References: <5@rsoft.UUCP> <1071@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <861@quintus.UUCP> <3049@arcturus>
Organization: SCADA
Lines: 51

In article <3049@arcturus>, evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie) writes:
> The sound of a programmer trying to read a C program flinging himself
> against a wall.

Is that like the sound of one hand clapping?

> In article <8536@alice.UUCP>, ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:
> > 	do	ch = getchar();
> > 	while (ch != EOF)
> > 		process(ch);
> > or, with braces:
> > 	do {
> > 		ch = getchar();
> > 	} while (ch != EOF) {
> > 		process(ch);
> > 	}

This is a wonderful and clean extension to 'C' that solves the loop problem
once and for all!

> I really do not mean to flame this person, but the above constructions
> are EXCEEDINGLY hard to read.  I much perfer the method which already
> exists:

Only if you're not used to it. have you ever done extensive bourne-shell
or Forth programming, where this construct is a common idiom?

> 	while ( (c=getchar()) != EOF)
> 		process(c);

How about (in K&R indenting style, for consistancy):

	do {
		Ask question.
		Get answer.
		Categorise answer.
	} while(answer != exit) {
		Stuff...
		switch(answer) {
		  ...
		}
		And more stuff...
	}

That is, what about the case where the first part of the loop is too complex
to fit in a while statement. Sure, you could put a break in, but isn't this
clearer? The existing while and do loops become special cases.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.