[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[3]: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool:
From: |
Manuel Guesdon |
Subject: |
Re[3]: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?) |
Date: |
Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:16:12 +0100 (CET) |
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:26:19 +0000 (GMT) Nicola Pero <address@hidden> wrote:
>|
>| > >| I don't have particular objections to change 'if ([this canDoThat] ==
>| > >| YES)' into 'if ([this canDoThat])', if we write clearly in the coding
>| > >| standards that this can be done only for methods returning a BOOL, and
>| > >| that everything else (pointers, integers, etc) must be compared
>against
>| > >| something. So whenever you'd see 'if ([this doThat])' you know that
>the
>| > >| result type must have been a BOOL since it's compared to nothing.
>| >
>| > I think that
>| > if (MyPtr)
>| > is more readable than
>| > if (MyPtr == NULL)
>| > because it's shorter and still easily understandable buts it's only my
>opinion :-)
>|
>| I see your point and I somewhat respect it, but I'd politely disagree with
>| you.
>|
>| Shorter code is not necessarily more readable. Variables are often
>| declared somewhere else, and variable names often don't help that much.
>| Not all pointers are called 'xxxPtr'. For example,
>|
>| if (bytes)
>| {
>| }
>|
>| is a typical example of obscure code. What is 'bytes' ? Is it an integer
>| ? A char * ? an object ?
But why calling it bytes ?
>| I think I really prefer
>|
>| if (bytes > 0)
>| {
>| }
>|
>| then it's clear that bytes is a counter, and that is executed only if the
>| counter is positive.
Agree, but naming it bytesCount will be, IMHO, better :-)
>| if (bytes != NULL)
>| {
>| }
>|
>| then it's clear that bytes is a C pointer, likely a C buffer, and the code
>| is executed is the pointer points to something (which usually means you
>| can derefence it).
So we could name it buffer, bytesPtr or pStr
>| if (bytes != nil)
>| {
>| }
>|
>| then it's clear that bytes is an ObjC object, likely an NSData * object,
>| or maybe an NSString *, and the code is executed if the object is not nil
>| (which usually means you can send messages to it).
>|
>| Those cases are very different, and I like the code to immediately give a
>| feeling of which case you're in - the code is more expressive and easier
>| to read then.
You're right with these kind of name. I haven't thought of this kind of cases
because I
usually try to give explicit name.
Finally, I still prefer short notation but I understand your view, so ...
Manuel
--
______________________________________________________________________
Manuel Guesdon - OXYMIUM <address@hidden>
14 rue Jean-Baptiste Clement - 93200 Saint-Denis - France
Tel: +33 1 4940 0999 - Fax: +33 1 4940 0998
- Re[2]: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?, (continued)
- Re[2]: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?, Manuel Guesdon, 2004/01/29
- Re: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?, Helge Hess, 2004/01/30
- [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), Alexander Malmberg, 2004/01/30
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), David Ayers, 2004/01/30
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), Nicola Pero, 2004/01/30
- Re[2]: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), Manuel Guesdon, 2004/01/30
- Re[2]: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), Nicola Pero, 2004/01/30
- Re[3]: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?),
Manuel Guesdon <=
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), David Ayers, 2004/01/31
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2004/01/31
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), David Ayers, 2004/01/31
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), David Ayers, 2004/01/31
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with+numberWithBool: ?), Alexander Malmberg, 2004/01/31
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), Kazunobu Kuriyama, 2004/01/30
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2004/01/30
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2004/01/30
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), Adam Fedor, 2004/01/30
- Re: [RFA]: BOOL coding standards (Was: Problem with +numberWithBool: ?), Sheldon Gill, 2004/01/31