From: jcoffin{at}taeus.com
To: c_echo{at}yahoogroups.com

At 08:35 AM 9/11/2003 +0100, you wrote:

[ ... ]

>No, I don't think so.  function() may return any non-zero value to be true.
>  If it returned 2, your if would fail.
>
>Much better is:
>
>i = function(parm);
>if (i) /* ... */

IMO, this is only marginally better.  The right way is like:

if ( i=function(parm))

>I don't see what the fascination is with cramming everything into a single
>statement.  C just isn't built properly for that.

Simple: by getting into the habit of putting them together, you don't
accidentally do one part without the other.  Just for example, if you write:

x = malloc(somesize);

it's easy to forget to add the:

if ( x == NULL)
         // allocation failed.

OTOH, if you always write it as:

if ( NULL == (x=malloc(somesize)))
         // allocation failed

you're much less likely to forget.

>Perl, however, ... ;-)

I suppose you have a point there: in C it's a question of whether you're
more interested in being certain your code is always correct (favors
merging the expressions) or readable (favors splitting them up).

In Perl, you might as well merge the expressions, since there's no chance
of it being readable anyway! 
         Later,
         Jerry.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05