Jeremias Maerki wrote: > The following should (sorry, could) be ok: > > for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { > doSomething(); > if (amIRight()) cool(); > doSomethingElse(); > }
One point here: If it's not amIRight() but if (amIRight() || ( more stuff follows .............) cool(); doSomethingElse(); you tend to ignore the cool() stuff in favor of doSomethingElse. I can't count the times I've seen people hunt for this kind of bug (most when changing someone else's code, of course). Which is why I always use: if (foo) doFoo(); On the whole I think you would be served best by forbidding if (foo) doFoo(); and allowing if (foo) doFoo(); else doBar(); as well as if (foo) { doFoo(); } else { doBar(); } leaving this issue to personal taste. Just my 2 cents. -- Cappelino Informationstechnologie GmbH Arnd Beißner --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]