3 ms·

I still prefer this: if( b != nil && b->qid.type == a->qid.type && b->qid.path == a->qid.path && b->qid.vers == a->qid.vers && b->dev == a->de

I still prefer this: if( b != nil && b->qid.type == a->qid.type && b->qid.path == a->qid.path && b->qid.vers == a->qid.vers && b->dev == a->dev && b->type == a->type ) { fprint(2, "cp: %s and %s are the same file\n", an, bn); ret = 1; }

IvyMike 13y ago
We can go deeper... if( b != nil && b->qid.type == a->qid.type && b->qid.path == a->qid.path && b->qid.vers == a->qid.vers && b->dev == a->dev && b->type == a->type ) { fprint(2, "cp: %s and %s are the same file\n", an, bn); ret = 1; } (Lined up the "a"s to make it obvious that they're all the same.)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - MindTwister 13y ago
    I'm not sure if you're trolling or not... but isn't that the point of the function in the first place...?
- MaulingMonkey 13y ago
  I'd prefer some variation on: int samedirfile( Dir *a, Dir *b ) { if( a == b ) return 1; return ( a && b ) && ( a->qid.type == b->qid.type ) && ( a->qid.path == b->qid.path ) && ( a->qid.vers == b->qid.vers ) && ( a->dev == b->dev ) && ( a->type == b->type ); } ... if( samedirfile( a, b ) ) { fprint(2, "cp: %s and %s are the same file\n", an, bn); ret = 1; }
  - tricolon 13y ago
    I think it's fascinating that we prefer styles that are almost opposites: int samedirfile(Dir *a, Dir *b) { if(a == b) { return 1; } return (a && b) && (a->qid.type == b->qid.type) && (a->qid.path == b->qid.path) && (a->qid.vers == b->qid.vers) && (a->dev == b->dev) && (a->type == b->type); } ... if(samedirfile(a, b)) { fprint(2, "cp: %s and %s are the same file\n", an, bn); ret = 1; }
    - MaulingMonkey 13y ago
      I'll note I actually have a slight preference for prepended continuation operators like you have, but I stick to the style used at work for the sake of my sanity in trying to write consistent code.
  - drivebyacct2 13y ago
    I'm so, so, so glad that new languages are banning braceless if/else bodies.
    - MaulingMonkey 13y ago
      So how about that python? </trololololo>
      - drivebyacct2 13y ago
        I should have of course said "some" :)
sbmassey 13y ago
Putting the &&'s at the beginning of each line makes the overall shape of the logic expression easier to percieve: you can prove they're all one big 'and' expression without having to hunt for the end of each line.

IvyMike 13y ago

We can go deeper... if( b != nil && b->qid.type == a->qid.type && b->qid.path == a->qid.path && b->qid.vers == a->qid.vers && b->dev == a->dev && b->type == a->type ) { fprint(2, "cp: %s and %s are the same file\n", an, bn); ret = 1; } (Lined up the "a"s to make it obvious that they're all the same.)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- MindTwister 13y ago
  I'm not sure if you're trolling or not... but isn't that the point of the function in the first place...?
MaulingMonkey 13y ago
I'd prefer some variation on: int samedirfile( Dir *a, Dir *b ) { if( a == b ) return 1; return ( a && b ) && ( a->qid.type == b->qid.type ) && ( a->qid.path == b->qid.path ) && ( a->qid.vers == b->qid.vers ) && ( a->dev == b->dev ) && ( a->type == b->type ); } ... if( samedirfile( a, b ) ) { fprint(2, "cp: %s and %s are the same file\n", an, bn); ret = 1; }
- tricolon 13y ago
  I think it's fascinating that we prefer styles that are almost opposites: int samedirfile(Dir *a, Dir *b) { if(a == b) { return 1; } return (a && b) && (a->qid.type == b->qid.type) && (a->qid.path == b->qid.path) && (a->qid.vers == b->qid.vers) && (a->dev == b->dev) && (a->type == b->type); } ... if(samedirfile(a, b)) { fprint(2, "cp: %s and %s are the same file\n", an, bn); ret = 1; }
  - MaulingMonkey 13y ago
    I'll note I actually have a slight preference for prepended continuation operators like you have, but I stick to the style used at work for the sake of my sanity in trying to write consistent code.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  I'm so, so, so glad that new languages are banning braceless if/else bodies.
  - MaulingMonkey 13y ago
    So how about that python? </trololololo>
    - drivebyacct2 13y ago
      I should have of course said "some" :)

sbmassey 13y ago

Putting the &&'s at the beginning of each line makes the overall shape of the logic expression easier to percieve: you can prove they're all one big 'and' expression without having to hunt for the end of each line.