levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (05/22/86)
I think there may be at least one good reason NOT to do this, or at least to have expressions on different lines of the source code even if <expression, expression;> is legal--and that is for debugging. If you have code which is giving mysterious core dump problems, Murphy's law says sdb or adb will show the problem occurring on a line with multiple statements on it, and you'll just have to go back and edit the code into several lines each containing a single statement to pin down the problem. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, vax135}!ttrdc!levy
kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer) (05/26/86)
In article <892@ttrdc.UUCP> ttrdc!levy (Dan Levy) writes: >I think there may be at least one good reason NOT to do this ...: for >debugging. If you have code which is giving mysterious core dump problems, >Murphy's law says sdb or adb will show the problem occurring on a line with >multiple statements on it ... Well, what *I* do is look at the *instruction* where it bombed, rather than the statement. Of course, for less sophisticated users (or when using a too-smart debugger that won't disassemble) that may not be an option. This brings up an interesting question, though. Given that the language is almost completely free-format, why should a debugger be line-oriented rather than statement- or expression-oriented? (Probable answer: it's trivial to "point to" a line.) Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint