C elements of style

[aarklon]

Hi all,

I was going through the book "C Elements of style" by steve oualline.
in this book many guidelines are given.

the following were seen in the book as rules

1) while(1) is preferred over for(;;)
2) use of const is preferred over #define
3) unless extreme efficiency is warranted, use printf instead of putc
& puts
now my question is

can anyone give examples for the justification of above rules ..????

OR
To what extent these rules are true..???

[aarklon]

On Apr 3, 9:48*pm, Keith Thompson <[e-mail]:

Finally, the semicolon at the end of the macro definition defeats the
purpose of the do-while trick. *Is that really there in the book?

Okay you are correct. I accidentally put that semicolon at the end of
the macro

[aarklon]

On Apr 3, 11:42 am, [e-mail] wrote:

On Apr 2, 4:15 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

On Apr 3, 12:58 am, Eric Sosman <[e-mail]:

Does this Rulemaker go on to

recommend pow(x,2) instead of x*x, or pow(2,6) instead of 64?

he gives many rules, some of them are as follows

4) always split a for statement into 3 lines

5) when splitting up a conditional clause(?:),write it on three lines:
the condition line,the true-value line, and the false-value
line.indent the last two lines an extra level

6)allow no more than 5 parameters to a function

7)avoid do/while use while and break instead.

8)use the comma operator inside a for statement only to put together
two statements. never use it to combine three statements

9)always put a break at the end of the last case in a switch statement

more rules fro the same book

10) do not use absolute paths in #include directives. let the -I
compile option do the work

11) begin all debug printfs with ##
ex:- printf("## state=%d",state);

12) the best indentation is 4 spaces

13) if a macro contains more than one statement, use a do while
structure to enclose the macro

ex:- #define ABORT \
do{ \
puts("abort"); \
exit(8); \
}while(0);

For Complete List of Oaulline Rules see:-

http://www.oualline.com/style/styleRULE.html

[Richard Heathfield]

aa*****@gmail.com said:

<snip>

For Complete List of Oaulline Rules see:-

http://www.oualline.com/style/styleRULE.html

Why?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[William Pursell]

On 4 Apr, 08:20, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

>
Secondly, let's take an example like this:

rc = myfunctioncall(arga,
argb,
argc);

which looks lovely with spaces.

Well, there is much debate about whether or not
that is lovely. Personally, I have never
liked that style. Much better (IMO) is:

rc = myfunctioncall(
arga,
argb,
argc
);

(With many variations on that theme.) The
notion of attempting to align all the arguments
to the first and anchoring the first argument
to the open paren is wrong-headed. If you
do like that, and still want to use tabs, you
can do things like:

rc = myfunctioncall( arga,
<tab to match indent of rc>/**/<spaces>argb,

The comment isn't necessary, but many
people (correctly) abhor mixing tabs and
spaces in indentation, and the emtpy comment
serves as a delimiter. But this particular
style (aligning arguments) is the only reason
to ever want to mix tabs and spaces, and (again
IMO) the correct solution is to abandon that
practice.

[aarklon]

On Apr 10, 2:56 am, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

[e-mail] said:

<snip>

For Complete List of Oaulline Rules see:-

http://www.oualline.com/style/styleRULE.html

Why?

see this:- http://www.accu.informika.ru/accu/bo.../c/c000262.htm

[Richard Heathfield]

aa*****@gmail.com said:

On Apr 10, 2:56 am, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

>[e-mail] said:

<snip>

For Complete List of Oaulline Rules see:-

>http://www.oualline.com/style/styleRULE.html

Why?

see this:-

http://www.accu.informika.ru/accu/bo.../c/c000262.htm

<shrugIt's a book review. Whilst I haven't read "C Elements of Style", I
did browse through "Practical C Programming" a few years ago, and was
rather disconcerted to find that it wasn't actually very good, despite
being recommended regularly in clc at the time (it isn't, any more). The
stuff you posted earlier about cleaning out program "muck" looked like
more of the same - i.e. not very impressive.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999