And as a side-note most compilers worth using will generate the same machine instructions when you optimize, so there's no benefit in the "cute" versions. The more long-winded "readable" version is much more valuable in the long run... IMO
-----Original Message----- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of George Gallen Sent: January-16-12 10:54 AM To: U2 Users List Subject: Re: [U2] Brilliant? or not? This is one of the reasons why I continue to x=x+1 instead of x++ Not all languages support the ++, but they all support x=x+1 George -----Original Message----- From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:50 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: Re: [U2] Brilliant? or not? > From: Charles_Shaffer > Aside from it not being readable, compacting C code like that can > reduce portability. Different compilers may evaluate complex, > compacted code differently. Same thing has actually happened with BASIC code that's ported from one platform to another. Rule of thumb: Don't get cute. Spell out the code so that any dumb compiler or programmer can read it. On-topic: that makes my response to this thread, "not". One of our colleagues from the mid 80's wrote code that was so clean I liked to say we could eat off of it. I think he still reads this forum: So to Mark Vander Veen, here we are over 20 years later and I Still appreciate your code. Now THAT is Brilliant. T _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
