A proposed solution from the article: > Use "if (condition()) { ifBlock(); } if (!condition()) { elseBlock(); }" -- assuming that ifBlock() can't possibly chan

A proposed solution from the article: > Use "if (condition()) { ifBlock(); } if (!condition()) { elseBlock(); }" -- assuming that ifBlock() can't possibly change the result of condition(). What?? That seems terrible to me - just asking for `condition` to be updated to be modifiable by `ifBlock`, or for some completely undebuggable race condition to occur. My team has an ongoing style war about guard clauses: if foo: bar() baz() vs if foo: bar() else: baz() Consensus seems to favor the first option but I prefer the second because it helps me keep in mind the conditions that lead me to `baz()`. Otherwise I have to scan up the whole function to figure out the restriction `!foo`.