On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 21:14 -0400, Duane Ellis wrote:
> >> bool okay = *str && !*end && ULLONG_MAX != *ul;
>
> <screaming-rant>
This fails to demonstrate a mature, professional attitude, but I hope
that you can engage in a rational discussion about this topic.
> In my long career, I have seen too many poor souls - including my self
> become the victim of even my own seemingly simple attempts to reduce the
> levels of () and {}. Yes, there are cases where it gets a little too
> deep, but there must be a balance.
On the opposite side of the coin, I have seen too many programmers rely
on extra parentheses because they do not _know_ C operator precedence.
There are cases that deserve extra parenthesis, but not on that line.
If removing braces from single-line statements breaks something, then
the statement itself was broken (e.g. a macro lacking do { } while(0)
wrap) or something else needs to be fixed.
> Openocd is not, and should never become an entry in the 'obfuscated C
> code contest[1]'. It seems that we are heading down that road.
> </screaming-rant>
Seriously? You think that my efforts have increased the obfuscation?
My principle aim has been to improve the readability of the code, so I
have to wonder whether others agree with this particular assessment.
Cheers,
Zach
_______________________________________________
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
