bug 116546

[Derek Atkins]

linas at linas.org (Linas Vepstas) writes:

> > > +   if (1 < be->nest_count) {
> > > +       LEAVE("be->nest_count < 1: %d", be->nest_count); 
> > > 
> > > The message is reversed.  This is checking whether be->next_count > 1
> > > 
> > > (FWIW, I absolutely despise this style, for this exact reason!)
> 
> I love this style.  Its saved my but several times when I types
> be->next_count  = 1
> instead of
> be->next_count  == 1

Note that I said NOTHING about == tests..  It's < and > tests that
cause confusion (and honestly over the last few years I've fixed at
least 5 bugs due to broken "reverse" comparrisons).  If you want to
use "1 == be->next_count" then fine...  However please use
"be->next_count > 1".

> I admit it contrary to the norm, but its not hard to get used to, 
> and after a while, you wonder why everybody doesn't use it.

Sorry, but it's very hard to get used to.  "1 > foo" just isn't
intuitive to about 99% of the programmers out there (including me).

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available