Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:25:50 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 12:09:10, Tijs van Dam wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 11:57:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>It isn't ugly in the domain of software engineering. > >I understand completely that it is a very useful and readable solution (and I am >also a software engineer BTW). But you have to agree with me that, when looking >at it, it gives an ugly sight. > >I don't know any other solution that covers all uses of your construction. But >what i use a lot is: > >_inline performalotofstuf(params_that_i_need_forthis) >{ > if(params_are_unusable) > return; > > lots of stuf; > >} > >.... >performalotofstuf(params); >.... > > > I find that _much_ harder to read. Because I have to run off and find the code to "performlotsofstuff()" somewhere else. I subscribe to the Linus Torvalds 'standards' for writing code for the most part, although I do break the rules for speed since that is very important in a chess engine. I don't personally consider the do { } while(0); construct to be ugly when compared to a goto that is hard to track down... >Of course this isn't any good if lots of stuf needs a lot of params. And one >must have a good compiler for the inline construction to compile the same as the >do{}while(0). But i think it is a prettier and more readable solution. > >Greets, >Tijs > >>Bob
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.