From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rick Hohensee <humbubba@smarty.smart.net>
Message-Id: <200108180447.AAA10603@smarty.smart.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Sam question
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
In-Reply-To: <20010817223532.73AB8199F3@mail.cse.psu.edu> from "David Gordon Hogan" at Aug 17, 2001 06:35:27 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:47:30 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e24baf00-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> 
> > I hear this argument from Gnuers and the like.  If it's a problem,
> > your identifiers are too long or your functions are too long (thus
> > your block nesting is too deep).  In the case of Gnu code, both are
> > true.
> 
> Another common reason is that people don't know how to use continue.
> Eg, instead of writing:
> 
> 	for(p = example; p != nil; p = p->next) {
> 		q = p->fish;
> 		if(q->foo > 4 && q->bar < 3) {
> 			r = q->blarg;
> 			if(r->foo == 7) {
> 				dosomething(r);
> 				r->done++;
> 			}
> 		}
> 	}
> 
> it is stylistically preferable to write
> 
> 	for(p = example; p != nil; p = p->next) {
> 		q = p->fish;
> 		if(q->foo <= 4 || q->bar >= 3)
> 			continue;
> 		r = q->blarg;
> 		if(r->foo != 7)
> 			continue;
> 		dosomething(r);
> 		r->done++;
> 	}
> 
> Notice the difference this makes in the indentation.
> I think it's also slightly more readable, but YMMV.
> 

Very interesting, since I don't use continue myself that I can recall. The
above technique is limited to "trailing ifs" though isn't it? i.e. it
won't work with...


	for  (p = example; p != nil; p = p->next) {
		q = p->fish;
		if(q->foo > 4 && q->bar < 3) {
			r = q->blarg;
		}
		r->done++;
	}

i.e. where the if to continuefy is not the last thing in the enclosing
block? 

Rick Hohensee
							www.clienux.com