RFC

[janderson]

janderson wrote:
> Henning Hasemann wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 02:45:05 -0700
>> janderson <askme at me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> davidb wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> 5) line 62:
>>>>    if "for (;;) ... " has only one statement(?), you don't need
>>>>    enclosing {} (just cosmetics, but hey - 2 chars less typing *g*)
>>>>    (or did you use it here as a means to show your intention
>>>>     more clearly?)
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I know this is mainly a style thing however I've seen many bugs 
>>> caused by people who leave the scope brakes of the loop.
>>
>> Ack, I also have only *very* few cases where I do not put brackets
>> (also because I come from python so if I'm not concentrated I fear
>> it might happen to me to rely on indentation)
>>
>> Henning
>>
> 
> I've seen:
> - People don't search-replace and removing a particular statement (it 
> will then run the second line)
> - People using them with macros (that haven't been properly scoped)
> - People adding a statement that is really 2.
> - People with a load of nested ifs, remove one and then the else 
> statement relates to something else.
> - Particularly in nested situations, people get the scope confused when 
> writing the code and end up putting a statement in the wrong scope.
> 
> Its not that common, however these bugs can be a significant time sink 
> when they occur.  I think its more time consuming to avoid putting them in.
> 
> Also, for me as a style thing its less typing to have brackets because 
> they are auto generated as I type.  I can then easily expand the 
> statement without having to go back and add {}.

I should add, that I'm not a style Nazi.  I was just trying to 
demonstrate the other side of the fence on this one.

-Joel