On Friday 03 June 2016 15:14:13 Edward Welbourne wrote: > Marc Mutz > > > The three clauses should stay three clauses if the action (their > > then-block) is independent. If the then-block, as you seem to suggest, > > is idenitical in tokens and semantics, then you *will* find a name to > > describe it that doesn't just transliterate the original C++ code into > > English: shouldDeleteThing, thingIsExpired, isNoLongerNeeded(thing), > > ... > > Just to be clear, my example code's delete thing was just using that as > "there's some random tidy-up we need to do before any early return"; so > the three conditions are all "we need to return early from this method" > and the need to delete thing (which was nowhere referenced in any of the > conditionals) is incidental to the test. In such a case I very much > doubt there's a nice name for the method.
Ok, sorry, then I misunderstood. In that case: the thing should have been held in a scoped pointer and the three guard clauses should stay separate, but with just 'return' as the action. With the cleanup dealt with by RAII, I don't see a reason to combine the ifs anymore. Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development