- On Sunday 02 November 2008 16:11, Philip Tellis wrote:
> RRS dropped bits saying:Umm... Yes?
> > On Sunday 02 November 2008 15:30, D. Wayne Fincher wrote:
> >> That would be great if it weren't bad programming technique.
> > Grotesque! Redundant punctuation does not accentuate readability,
> > and
> When 900 years old you reach, look as good, you will not. Hmm?
Unless, perhaps, you're an acolyte of Ray Kurzweil.
However, I fail to apprehend the significance of the assertion...
- Code conventions aren't just about "making code more readable".
Anyone that attacks my post on that one single issue is taking part in
a straw man. That is, instead of presenting a rebuttal based on the
argument at hand, you take another argument which is easier to rebut
and refute that one.
In this case, I never mentioned anything about the readability of the
code. And yet, a few posts only rebutted me on that point.
Classic straw man approach. ;)
> > I used the wrong term (syntax error), to me code that doesn't run as
> expected is an error ;)
> > So not putting the braces in and compressing the line could result
> in code that doesn't run as you want it to.
> Dav, I may be misreading you, but I don't see how the example I posted
> could be interpreted in any other way than the example with braces. The
> ECMAScript standard specifies how these structures are to be parsed and
> evaluated; any difference would indicate a (severe) bug in the script
> Just in case, let me mention that I personally do use braces even if
> they're not necessary, but a compressor doesn't get any bonus points
> for readable output.
> - Conrad