From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Loryn Jenkins Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/02 Message-ID: <35EC4E55.3112534D@s054.aone.net.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 386888856 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <35EAEC47.164424A7@s054.aone.net.au> <35EBBFAF.DE38C061@s054.aone.net.au> <35EC28BD.351F33DF@s054.aone.net.au> <35EC36E9.2FBC9E79@fv.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 904679087 15448 203.12.186.173 (1 Sep 1998 19:44:47 GMT) Organization: TekRite Pty Ltd Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: loryn@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Sep 1998 19:44:47 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-01T19:44:47+00:00 List-Id: > I think picking the proper names for locals invariably clarifies the > code, even at the expense of declaring another local. The first time you > assign to "Result", you're not assigning the "result". > > One of my rules of thumb for clear programming is "have a meaning for > every variable that is appropriate at every line of the algorithm". > Otherwise, you're using the same variable for multiple unrelated values. > Here, it's clear just by looking that you know the stacks are different > if the counts are different or the items are different, you stop the > loop as soon as you know the stacks are different, and the result is > whether you know the stacks are different at the bottom of the loop. > > This is a bit more pendantic than I usually am, but I think it's *very* > clear, and certainly more clear than embedded returns. That's a very good point. Thanks for making it. Obviously, I'm with you: I agree that this is a clearer to comprehend, easier to maintain style than the embedded returns. Do you still disagree, Matthew? Given that the complexity is pretty similar---perhaps with some complexity shifted from the flowgraph to the decision table---with the resulting complexity being equivalent. And, I think, all your other points have been addressed by this example ... excepting the 'performance' issue. Loryn Jenkins