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,INVALID_MSGID 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: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jdege@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388514939 References: <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6simjo$jnh$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35eeea9b.2174586@news.erols.com> <6sjj7n$3rr$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f055a5.1431187@news.erols.com> <6sjnlu$83l$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6skfs7$2s6$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F252DD.5187538@earthlink.net> <6sur5m$n9o$1@hirame.wwa.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@visi.com X-Trace: ptah.visi.com 905121363 209.98.6.59 (Sun, 06 Sep 1998 17:36:03 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 17:36:03 CDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 22:09:41 GMT, Ell wrote: >In comp.object Robert Martin wrote: > >: Matthew Heaney wrote in message ... > >:>I argue against using only a single return statement, because it often >:>means that you have to do work to do ... nothing. Once I determine my >:>answer (or satisfy the conditions for loop termination), then I'd rather >:>return immediately, instead of having to figure out how to navigate my >:>way to the end of the subprogram. > >: This is effective iff returning immediately is, and always will be, the >: right thing to do. But if there is a reasonable chance that you will have >: to do some error handling at some time in the future, then maintaining an >: se/se style provides place holders for that future code. >: >: BTW, that is nothing more than a benefit. One could still make a realistic >: and valid decision to forego that benefit. > >And one could attempt to achieve other possibly more useful benfits given >specific circumstances. Ye gads, you're agreeing with each other... -- For every problem there is one solution which is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken