Re: short-circuit control forms (& 'long names are doom')

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <3B336844.9B58ED9A@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>, Wes Groleau says...
>
>
>> There was an interesting thread on this subject back in 95 (search for short
>> circuit in the Google archives of comp.lang.ada).
>
>Didn't work.  Seeral search methods only returned parts
>of this (current) thread.

The top of the thread in google can be found at
http://groups.google.com/groups?&th=8b7a8d2b810c767b,15&start=0&ic=1 .


>> I found Tucker Taft's comment particularly interesting:
( http://groups.google.com/groups?th=8b7a8d2b810c767b,15&start=3&ic=1 )

>I hope he's listening, because without seeing the whole post,
>I strongly suspect that his answer was "no"

You'd be wrong. :-(

The general gist I got from the thread is that both Tucker and Robert Dewar
agreed that this is mostly a religous issue, and that both of them subsribe to
short-circuitism. Robert said (in
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=8b7a8d2b810c767b,15&start=6&ic=1 ):

>I personally prefer the second style, but in any case it is clear
>that you need to choose one particular style and stick to it. For
>example, GNAT always uses the second style.

"second style" being using short-circuit forms by default.


---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com