Subj : Re: Is well written code a rare species ?
To   : comp.programming
From : Joe Butler
Date : Tue Aug 16 2005 01:51 am


> I'd write your example as:
>
> for (x=0, y=0; x < n; x++, y++)
> {
> }
>

I could easily live with that, but just got into the habit of 'attaching'
the assignment operator to the assignee.
And separating both 'things' (can't recall their tecky name) with spaces
during a comparison, e.g. if(x == 0).  It's another visual clue that makes
these things stand out to me - I don't need to think about it when I'm
typing it, it just happens.

I guess that x= 0 is not as symetrical as x == 0 (which is how I visuallise
the entire thing in my mind - the equivalence is ballanced and could be
reversed with no change in meaning: so, symetrical, wherease the assignment
changes meaning if reversed - therefore: not symetricall).  x = 0 makes me
look twice because the symbol in the middle is too short to be there on its
own.

And seeing the 'for' with a space after it, I always wonder how people that
were brought up during maths lessons on f(x) rather than f (x) [I assume all
maths teaches this layout - i.e. no space after the 'f'] end up writing
'functions' as function (x) rather than function(x) with no space.  It's
only a very minor thing, but it makes me wonder, anyway.

e.g.

sin(x)
sin (x)

one is natural, the other is somehow disjointed for me.

.