matching { } syntax style

[bart]

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

I find the following much better to read (C style)

function()
{
implementations;
}

kind regards,
Bart

 

[Phlip]

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

They don't. Some like it and some don't.

I find the following much better to read (C style)

function()
{
implementations;
}

For style, I follow the ultimate acknowledge reference for English - /The
Elements of Style/.

It says to use parallel construction on parallel concepts.

Don't say, "The big red lion lay down with the lamb, small and furry".

Say, "The big red lion lay down with the small furry lamb."

The adjectives parallel their relation to their noun.

So, in programming, put the curly braces where they parallel each other.

 

[jeffc]

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

I find the following much better to read (C style)

function()
{
implementations;
}

I don't think everybody does like the former. I think at least half the
people prefer the latter.

 

[Ron Natalie]

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

I find the following much better to read (C style)

function()
{
implementations;
}

What makes you think the latter is C style? And what makes you think it's
easier to read?

 

[Tim Clacy]

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

I find the following much better to read (C style)

function()
{
implementations;
}

kind regards,
Bart

Some of us don't like either; they're there to make compiler writers lives
easier, not ours.

 

[Stewart Gordon]

While it was 10/10/03 2:50 pm throughout the UK, bart sprinkled little
black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

I'm one of everybody, amn't I? I personally hate it when people can't
be bothered to indent.

I find the following much better to read (C style)

function()
{
implementations;
}

Well, I guess that

function() {
implementations;
}

gives the best of both worlds.

Stewart.

 

[Patrick Kowalzick]

Hi bart,

function() {
implementations;
}

This style has a very big advantage when you use a single-line debugger, In
fact not for a function. Try an if instead.

When you use these two cases with a single-line debugger...

if (someboolexpression)
dosomething;

if (someboolexpression) {
dosomethingmore;
}

...and the line with an if appears the curly brace tells you that a block is
following. If not one single command follows.

function()
{
implementations;
}

I personally like this style more. In my opinion it is more readable. But I
do not use a single-line debugger. So I assume that I am not part of
"everybody".

Regards,
Patrick

 

[Thomas Matthews]

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

I find the following much better to read (C style)

function()
{
implementations;
}

kind regards,
Bart

Some people like this style:
return_type
function()
{
implementation;
}
The braces show the indentation.

I prefer to have the braces line up to help show the indentation
levels.

But this is what they call a religious issue; there is no
correct answer, only what people believe.

--
Thomas Matthews

C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c++/faq.html
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book

 

[Tim Clacy]

Some of us don't like either; they're there to make compiler writers
lives easier, not ours.

....and just to set the cat amongst the pigeons, I'm quite fond of this:

void fn() {
while (...) {
switch (...) {
case :
case :
default : } } }

 

[Default User]

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

I find the following much better to read (C style)

If anything, the former is C-style, as it was used by the originators of
C in K&R. Often refered to as K&R style or OTBS (one true brace style).

function()
{
implementations;
}

I have a preference for Whitesmith's style:

if (1)
{
std::cout << "code!\n";
}


Just pick a style and use it consistently.



Brian Rodenborn

 

[Kris Wempa]

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

I find the following much better to read (C style)

function()
{
implementations;
}

kind regards,
Bart

I prefer your second style in functions only. If statement blocks like I
prefer to use the first. I just don't see the point in dedicating an ENTIRE
line to a measly '{'. I'd much rather write:

if (x == 10) {

}

than:

if (x == 10)
{

}

As long as my closing '}' is lined up DIRECTLY under the statement that
opened it, I find it easy to read.

 

[Howard]

... And what makes you think it's easier to read?

Umm...the fact that *he* finds it easier to read, perhaps? (Does an opinion
need a reason?) And I agree. For some reason (i have no idea why), I find
it much easier to quickly spot braces that are aligned vertically than a
closing brace matching the start of a line of text. So, for me, it's easier
to read.

On the other hand, my boss, who wrote the code I'm updating and maintaining,
likes it the other way. Must be why he's the boss.

-Howard

 

[lilburne]

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

I find the following much better to read (C style)

function()
{
implementations;
}

Pick a style any style and stick to it. Personally I prefer

function()
{
if (expression) {
statements;
}
}

but that is because it is our house style. Prior to my
current place I preferred another style, it doesn't matter a
jot, which you use. But if you are programming with others a
standard style is a great help. I can look over any piece of
code in the company and the layout is the same, it looks my
code, and my code looks like anyone else's. The standard
layout helps you to understand what is happening.
Occasionally we receive code from some outside source that
does not conform to our standard, and it is always
difficult to read. That doesn't mean that it is wrong, or a
bad style, its just that it isn't the one we are used to.

 

[J. Campbell]

Why is it that everybody likes the follwowing curly braces syntax

function() {
implementations;
}

I find the following much better to read (C style)

function()
{
implementations;
}

kind regards,
Bart

Bart...I agree with the others. It's a matter of preference. I'm
pretty new to C++, and as I was getting started, I read several essays
on styles. I ended up using Bruce Eckel's book's style. eg:

function(){
implementations;
}

I like this style because:
1) it takes up less space, vertically.
2) you read the function name, immediately see the open bracket, and
then look down to where the scope for that indentation ends.

My one minor exception to that I sometimes adopt is for if else
statements:

function(){
if(expression){
statement1;
statement2;
}else{
statement1;
statement2;
}
}

However, I also sometimes do single line if else if it fits nicely
onto one line.

function(){
if(expression) statement; else statement;
}

 

[Phlip]

...and just to set the cat amongst the pigeons, I'm quite fond of this:

void fn() {
while (...) {
switch (...) {
case :
case :
default : } } }

I'm fond of very short functions, and replacing switch statements with
virtual messages, so my bad-ass pidgeon is not alarmed by your silly
little cat.

 

[Clive]

<snip>
< However, I also sometimes do single line if else if it fits nicely
< onto one line.
<
< function(){
< if(expression) statement; else statement;
< }

I don't meant to be fickle (I think this is the first occasion of me using
that word
but if your expression and statements fit nicely on a single line, wouldn't
you be better off writing

expression ? true_statement : false_statement;

That way, you dont have to write if, any brackets, an extra ; and the else.

 

[lilburne]

<snip>
< However, I also sometimes do single line if else if it fits nicely
< onto one line.
<
< function(){
< if(expression) statement; else statement;
< }

I don't meant to be fickle (I think this is the first occasion of me using
that word
but if your expression and statements fit nicely on a single line, wouldn't
you be better off writing

expression ? true_statement : false_statement;

That way, you dont have to write if, any brackets, an extra ; and the else.

The problem with both of these 'styles' is that you can't
put a simple breakpoint on any of the statements. The best
you can do is put a conditional breakpoint (based on
expression) on the line and then single step the expression.

With the tertiary expression both true_statement and
false_statement also have to be type compatible.

 

[Tim Clacy]

I'm fond of very short functions, and replacing switch statements with
virtual messages, so my bad-ass pidgeon is not alarmed by your silly
little cat.

The shorter the function, the more the relative waste of space the braces
become; so where so you put your braces in your 'very short functions'? How
about:

struct A {
virtual void fn0() { ... }
virtual void fn1() { ... }
virtual void fn2() { ... } };

 

[Risto Lankinen]

I don't meant to be fickle (I think this is the first occasion of me using
that word
but if your expression and statements fit nicely on a single line, wouldn't
you be better off writing

expression ? true_statement : false_statement;

Statements are not allowed in expressions. You cannot
write, for instance ...

someFlag ? continue : break;

Also, if you used the syntactically correct form of...

expression ? true_expression : false_expression;

.... instead, it still must also be semantically correct so
that the types returned by the sub-expressions are
assignable to a common type (which then becomes the
type of the entire expression). This, for instance,
would be syntactically correct, but semantically illegal:

someFlag ? 123 : "";

IMO, it is always better to use the if(){}else{} instead
of the ?: operator in all contexts that allow a statement,
and use the conditional operator only when the context
*requires* (rather than just *allows*) an expression.

Cheers!

- Risto -

 

[Stewart Gordon]

While it was 13/10/03 10:15 am throughout the UK, Risto Lankinen
sprinkled little black dots on a white screen, and they fell thus:

This, for instance, would be syntactically correct, but semantically illegal:

someFlag ? 123 : "";

But I've just tried

someFlag ? (void) 123 : (void) "";

and gcc/g++ accepts it.

IMO, it is always better to use the if(){}else{} instead
of the ?: operator in all contexts that allow a statement,
and use the conditional operator only when the context
*requires* (rather than just *allows*) an expression.

Guess you're kind of right there.

But, which do most people prefer:

if(qwert > 100) {
yuiop = 50;
} else {
yuiop = 25;
}

or

yuiop = (qwert > 100) ? 50 : 25;

or even

yuiop = ((qwert > 100) + 1) * 25;

....?

Stewart.