chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/25/83)
Ok, you asked for it ... :-) I always use for (;;) { stmt; stmt; } and usually use proc (arg1, arg2) type arg1, arg2; { but occasionally I'll use proc () { or proc (arg) type arg; { as long as the second is ``short'' (length depends on phase of moon &c) enough. The only style of indentation I CAN'T read is this one: for (;;) { stmts; } which someone around here uses. - Chris -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (07/26/83)
I always write for(...)
{
...
}
I find that otherwise it's very hard to track missing or extra
braces that the compiler complains about. It also adds a symmetry
and elegance to the listing. And to those who complain they can't
see as much on the screen at once, foo! The algorithm should be
in your head.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
utcsrgv!dave
Anonymous@tekcad.UUCP (07/27/83)
#R:umcp-cs:-113000:tekcad:17800001:000:491
tekcad!Anonymous Jul 26 08:20:00 1983
I don't know about everyone else, but I use:
for (;;)
{
stmt;
stmt;
stmt;
}
Really, folks! This topic was run into the ground a few months
ago. I have come to the conclusion that there are PERSONAL, STYLISTIC
factors which cannot be standardized and that if they were standardized
I wouldn't want to use the language. These discussions only generate
excess USENET traffic and solve nothing.
One man's readability is another man's illegibility,
Frank Adrian