indentation

[Bill Cunningham]

I have had several complaints by some people who wish to help me and I
wish to get the problem straight. I wrote this small utility myself and
added some indentation and I wonder if it is acceptable. It does make source
easier to read.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
if (argc!=3) {
fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n");
return -1;
}
double x,y;
x=strtod(argv[1],NULL);
y=strtod(argv[2],NULL);
printf("%.2f\n" ,y/x);
return 0;
}

Is this a good example of a properly indended program?

Bill

[rio]

"cr88192" <cr*****@NOSPAM .hotmail.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:87******** *************** ***@saipan.com. ..

>
"rio" <[e-mail] in message
news:48******** *************** @reader4.news.t in.it...

>>
"Joe Wright" <jo********@com cast.netha scritto nel messaggio
news:xd******* *************** ********@comcas t.com...

>>Bill Cunningham wrote:
I have had several complaints by some people who wish to help me
and
I wish to get the problem straight. I wrote this small utility myself
and
added some indentation and I wonder if it is acceptable. It does make
source easier to read.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
if (argc!=3) {
fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n");
return -1;
}
double x,y;
x=strtod(argv[1],NULL);
y=strtod(argv[2],NULL);
printf("%.2f\n" ,y/x);
return 0;
}

Is this a good example of a properly indended program?

>>>Bill

i like below

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{double x, y;

if (argc!=3) { fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n"); return -1;}

x=strtod(argv[1], 0);
y=strtod(argv[2], 0);

return (x!=0.0) ?
(printf("%.2f\n ", y/x), 0): (printf("Error: x==0\n"), -1) ;
}

ICK...

these are not exactly the way I would personally use the trinary and comma
operators...

of course, I do have something vaguely similar, but it is more of a
"compact" style:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
double x, y;
if (argc!=3) { fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n"); return(-1); }
x=strtod(argv[1], 0); y=strtod(argv[2], 0);
if(x==0.0) { printf("Error: x==0\n"); return(-1); }
printf("%.2f\n" , y/x), 0); return(0); }

that your way is not ok i see because you
forget { for if

[pereges]

I have used pspad editor in the past but i think qed is much better
and less complicated.

[rio]

"cr88192" <cr*****@NOSPAM .hotmail.comha scritto nel messaggio
news:87******** *************** ***@saipan.com. ..

"rio" <[e-mail] in message
news:48******** *************** @reader4.news.t in.it...
ICK...

these are not exactly the way I would personally use the trinary and comma
operators...
of course, I do have something vaguely similar, but it is more of a
"compact" style:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
double x, y;
if (argc!=3) { fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n"); return(-1); }
x=strtod(argv[1], 0); y=strtod(argv[2], 0);
if(x==0.0) { printf("Error: x==0\n"); return(-1); }
printf("%.2f\n" , y/x), 0); return(0); }

i like it; it seems i have understood
i try something like this:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(int argc, char** argv)
{double x, y;
/*************** *******/
if (argc!=3) { fprintf(stderr, "usage error\n");
return -1;}
x=strtod(argv[1], 0);
y=strtod(argv[2], 0);
return (x!=0.0) ? (printf("%.2f\n ", y/x), 0):
(printf("Error: x==0\n"), -1);
}

usually, this is done for code that:
I usually wont really be reading or editing much;
my compulsion for reducing vertical space exceeded my need for clarity.

some elements of this style may sometimes be used in ordinary code though.

yes what you say is ok for me.
Thank you

[David Thompson]

On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:36:30 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

If [parens] are superfluous, why use them at all? I can understand why you
might add them in places where the precedence isn't obvious, e.g. in
something like (a << b) + c - but surrounding an expression with
parentheses does nothing to clarify precedence within the expression
itself.

That's not an example of unobvious, but of wrong or at least
different. (a << b) | c is an example of clarifying/reinforcing.

- formerly david.thompson1 || achar(64) || worldnet.att.ne t