Comment on Source Code TypographyComments−andrus13yWould like to know whether the author feels his rewrite is more successful than the original. The following takes me longer to read: for ( ; (*to = *from) != 0; ++from, ++to ) ; Whereas the idiomatic version seems simpler: for (; (*to = *from) != 0; ++from, ++to);−_mpu13yI agree. I don't understand why people keep trying to deface C. This "indentation" scheme is by all mean ridiculous and not practical. One thing we learn from this article is that the author actually does not program in C.−Luyt13yWhen I saw that ridiculous formatted for() in the article, I began suspecting the article was meant as a joke.
Comments
Would like to know whether the author feels his rewrite is more successful than the original. The following takes me longer to read:
Whereas the idiomatic version seems simpler:I agree. I don't understand why people keep trying to deface C. This "indentation" scheme is by all mean ridiculous and not practical. One thing we learn from this article is that the author actually does not program in C.
When I saw that ridiculous formatted for() in the article, I began suspecting the article was meant as a joke.