Re: Job Interview, Did I Mess Up?
Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> wrote:
One thing that irritates me with the SESE camp is that many of them
actually do not understand that it is more than just avoiding multiple
exits it is about structuring your code in such a way that a single exit
is natural and not being contrived by having extra variables.
And the SEME camp contains a good number of people whose code lacks
clarity because they just bail out at any old point.
Thank you Francis for being the voice of reason. I think part of the
problem is the false dichotomy of the entire discussion. If I ever met a
programmer who *never* used multiple exits, or *never* used singe exits,
I would ignore him for a fool.
The goal is to structure the code well and I tend to structure my code
so that I don't *need* multiple exits. The only thing I do that is even
remotely controversial is that I tend to add a "result" variable. (As I
have already said in this thread, I do this because it makes testing
easier.) The people I've worked with routinely tell me that my code is
very readable (even people who don't like me will say that my code looks
"academic" or like a textbook example,) so I think I'm doing OK as far
as code structure is concerned.
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]