Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc.

hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Fri, 25 Aug 1995 04:38:17 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[38 earlier articles]
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jthill@netcom.com (1995-08-24)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. hbaker@netcom.com (1995-08-23)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. way@cis.udel.edu (Thomas Way) (1995-08-23)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jmccarty@spdmail.spd.dsccc.com (1995-08-24)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. daniels@cse.ogi.edu (1995-08-24)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. pardo@cs.washington.edu (1995-08-25)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. hbaker@netcom.com (1995-08-25)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. jan@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (1995-08-25)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. stefan.monnier@epfl.ch (Stefan Monnier) (1995-08-28)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. chase@centerline.com (1995-08-28)
Re: Order of argument evaluation in C++, etc. hbaker@netcom.com (1995-08-30)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Keywords: C++, design, optimize
Organization: nil organization
References: 95-08-067 95-08-177
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 04:38:17 GMT

Thomas Way <way@cis.udel.edu> wrote:


> 2) In my opinion, it makes code difficult to read and support
> when function calls contain all sorts of expressions that
> are evaluated. Single statements tend to span lines more
> than necessary, and this alone slows down the task of
> digging through a year or two later to improve or otherwise
> rework pre-existing code... Particularly if it is not your
> own handiwork.


Uh... I think that many in the 'functional programming' community would
disagree with you ever so slightly. They would also suggest that you
acquire a better 'pretty printer' (code beautifier/indenter).


The newbies that I have taught have had a _much_ easier time learning
Lisp than they had learning Pascal. For some reason, the multiple statements
that you are so fond of were actually a barrier for them.


But we digress into stylistic differences, which we agreed were not
a fit topic for standards committees.


--
www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.