Andy Lester wrote:
We should also have 100%
code coverage, too.
Ah, I'm so glad someone in addition to me said that! ;-)
kid51
On Mar 6, 2008, at 1:09 PM, chromatic wrote:
Actually, it was to decrease the scope of stack variables.
Carry on then.
(As long as it's not "Functions should have one entry and one exit
point", at
which point I pull out the whiteboard and give my "Does this LOOK like
FORTRAN to you?" lect
On Thursday 06 March 2008 10:53:00 Andy Lester wrote:
> Actually, it was to decrease the scope of stack variables.
Carry on then.
(As long as it's not "Functions should have one entry and one exit point", at
which point I pull out the whiteboard and give my "Does this LOOK like
FORTRAN to you?
On Mar 6, 2008, at 11:58 AM, chromatic wrote:
Ugh. People can get over being sad, but unless there are resource
release
considerations, increasing the nesting depth of a function, widening
the
scope of stack variables, and obscuring the control flow with more
if/else
constructs seems lik
On Thursday 06 March 2008 07:41:07 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Log:
> This started out as spacing out some n-1 constructs for chromatic, but
> then I looked around and saw a lot of returns from functions and those
> kinda make me sad because it's usually nicer to drain out the bottom of
> the funct
