On 12/05/2009 12:30 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Paul Brook wrote:
On Monday 30 November 2009, Alexander Graf wrote:
Currently we have this stupid role of disallowing:
if (r)
break;
This has been discussed to death several times, in several different
paces, and with no clear resolutio
On 04.12.2009, at 18:47, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Monday 30 November 2009, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Currently we have this stupid role of disallowing:
>>
>> if (r)
>> break;
>
> This has been discussed to death several times, in several different paces,
> and with no clear resolution or co
Paul Brook wrote:
On Monday 30 November 2009, Alexander Graf wrote:
Currently we have this stupid role of disallowing:
if (r)
break;
This has been discussed to death several times, in several different paces,
and with no clear resolution or consensus, so I'm going to make an
On Monday 30 November 2009, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Currently we have this stupid role of disallowing:
>
> if (r)
> break;
This has been discussed to death several times, in several different paces,
and with no clear resolution or consensus, so I'm going to make an executive
decision:
Alexander Graf writes:
> Currently we have this stupid role of disallowing:
>
> if (r)
> break;
>
> By disallowing this we clutter the code, making it less readable without
> buying us anything. In fact, nobody actually sticks to this because it'd show
> just how much bad taste the progra
Currently we have this stupid role of disallowing:
if (r)
break;
By disallowing this we clutter the code, making it less readable without
buying us anything. In fact, nobody actually sticks to this because it'd show
just how much bad taste the programmer doing this would have.
So IMHO we
