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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: sureshvv@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/04 Message-ID: <6sp902$buj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 387884893 References: <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <6r1glm$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$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sgror$je8$3@news.indigo.ie> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6shbca$66c$1@news.indigo.ie> <6shhq7$lut$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sjbso$1lk$2@news.indigo.ie> <6sjijg$36r$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6skhcm$1dr$2@news.indigo.ie> <6skqf3$9g0$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6smmhv$1kp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6smsi3$n8i$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35EEBA15.30C3CC76@tisny.com> <6sn2lv$t6m$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35EEF0D1.939F1907@tisny.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x5.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.71.79.77 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 04 17:45:38 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5b1 [en] (WinNT; I) Date: 1998-09-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <35EEF0D1.939F1907@tisny.com>, Mike Spille wrote: > Robert Martin wrote: > > > > > > if (A is right) > > if (B is right) > > if (C is right) > > then do the work. > > > > emphasizes the work more than: > > > > if (A is wrong) then return; > > if (B is wrong) then return; > > if (C is wrong) then return; > > do the work; > > > > So, I think the notion of "emphasis" is somewhat subjective. > > > > Defintely so - I find having the most important code stuck in column X (where > X can vary, depending on how many checks and the nesting level) very hard > to follow over large programs. Having the important stuff at the zero > indentation level seems much more natural. As I indicated in another post add the following realistic requirements 1. A log message has to be output indicating the failed condition 2. A different value has to be returned for each of the conditions and you will see how much more cumbersome the se/se structure will become. I think, a function is best partitioned as a sequence of small number of independent paragraphs (scopes) - where each paragraph can be understood in a context independent manner. I contend that this is better for readability AND maintainability. The multiple-return structure accomplishes this better than the se/se structure. The se/se strcuture often creates a monolithic paragraph, creating a scope that extends across many lines. In fact, I feel that the multiple-return structure is more in line with the "structured" organization of programs. suresh -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum