Subj : Re: Is well written code a rare species ?
To   : comp.programming
From : akarl
Date : Tue Aug 16 2005 03:02 am

Joe Butler wrote:
>>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.

I can inform you that the keyword `for' is the start of a control 
statement and not a function call, hence the very reason for putting a 
space after `for', `while' and `if', to make it look less like a 
function call. (The parentheses around the guard are only there to 
simplify lexical scanning.)

August

.