On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 07:43:46AM -0400, Michael McConville wrote:
> Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > I do not agree. You only have to remeber "that function does sensible
> > error checking" and you do not have to remember at each spot which
> > condition is the right one.
> >
> > Function are the major way of structuring code, use them.
>
> It's not the idea of functions that I'm questioning. I don't think
> making a function for a simple if (x) then errx(...); condition is sane,
> though. I'm a bit biased at the moment because I'm searching through the
> tree for "creative" replacements for errx() et al.
If x is an expression involving relational operators, I do not like to
see multiple copies of that. e.g. verifying if a condition should use
> or >= is often hard enough. If I have to check that in multiple
places, I'm wasting effort. Also, if I see a bug and fix it, I do like
the fact that I do not have to check multiple occurrences of the same
expression and decide if they are really the same or not.
So even if a function increases the number of lines in a program,
often it reduces complexity.
-Otto
