C99: Suggestions for style(9)

[Christoph Mallon]

Julian Elischer schrieb:
> Christoph Mallon wrote:
> 
>>
>> You are mistaken. Re-read the "if": It already contains a "return;" as 
>> then-part. The declaration of "bp" has no relation to the "if".
>> In fact this is very good: "bp" can only be used after the "if", 
>> because it is declared after it. Further, it most probably is only 
>> assigned a value once, so declaration and the signle assignment are in 
>> the same place, which aids readability and makes the code more concise.
> 
> the fact that people misread it allows me to say
> 
> "the defense rests m'lord"

Non sequitur. Warner wrote the "return;" in the same line as the if, 
which easily hides it. If the "return;" wasn't there, the original 
statement would be almost correct - actually it would be a compile 
error, because if (x) int i; is not allowed[1].

	Christoph


[1] if (x) { int i; } is allowed, of course.