Re: C question for you old guys ;-)
Re: C question for you old guys ;-)
- Subject: Re: C question for you old guys ;-)
- From: Chris Ridd <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:57:49 +0100
On 9/6/03 2:58 pm, Steve Bird <email@hidden> wrote:
>
On Monday, June 9, 2003, at 08:43 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>
> At 11:30 AM +0200 6/9/03, Marcel Weiher wrote:
>
>> I guess I should have been a little more explicit. I wouldn't do
>
>> either of the above, but rather:
>
>>
>
>> if ( spriteInfo == NULL ) {
>
>> return nil;
>
>> }
>
>
>
> Having been bitten by C's block issues before, I do that as well, but
>
> I try and take it one step further and do:
>
>
>
> if ( NULL == spriteInfo ) {
>
> return nil;
>
> }
>
>
>
> putting the constant on the left-hand side of the equality test. It
>
> catches the times when I miss a = in the test--"NULL = foo" throws a
>
> compile-time error, "foo = NULL" leads to a bughunt session.
>
>
>
--- I wrestled with this and came out against it.
>
Mainly because it goes against "natural" thinking: I always think
>
if (changeReceived == 31 cents)
Looking at that pseudo code reminds me of the C source that apparently had
#define k *1000
just to allow a hardware engineer to write '100 k' in an expression (think
resistors). The bug was allegedly uncovered when someone tried defining a
variable called 'k' and wondering why he got compiler errors :-)
Nearly as bad as '#define private public' prior to including a C++ header
:-))
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.