12 Jul
2011
12 Jul
'11
3:22 p.m.
I do think Alex is talking about expressions such as (test1 & 55) ==
((test2 & test3) | 110) for example.
Or even (test1 == 44) && (test2 == 110) too.
I do agree the (()||()) style convention can avoid confusion for such
expressions.
On 7/12/11 22:44, Timo Kreuzer wrote:
Am 12.07.2011 00:52, schrieb Alex Ionescu:
Because that's the convention I keep trying
to make you enforce. It
avoids confusion.
Yes, you will now argue 10 scenarios where this doesn't matter (such
as below).
And by doing so, you will have proven my point:
1) You can avoid using (() || ()) if you know the 10 exceptions and
operator precedence by heart. (Aleksey Method)
But there is no operator involved
in "(BoundEntry)", so you don't need
to know any operator precedence.
or
2) You can always use (() || ()) and never have to worry about
anything (in this context). (The Sane Method).
In that case I also suggest using
SomeVariable = (OtherVariable);
return (Status);
if ((x == 2)) return;
SomePointer = &(Structure);
(SomePointer)->Member = (0);
> /* Check if we got at least one */
> - if (BoundEntry || ImportEntry)
> + if ((BoundEntry) || (ImportEntry))
>
Sorry for being sarcastic, but I just had to do this. You're literally
asking for it :)
I hope it won't lead to the introduction of something like
#define MY_CONSTANT sizeof(FOO) + 20
Regards,
Timo
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev