11 ms·
Would like to know whether the author feels his rewrite is more successful than the original. The following takes me longer to read: for (
by andrus 13y ago
Would like to know whether the author feels his rewrite is more successful than the original. The following takes me longer to read:
for (
;
(*to = *from) != 0;
++from, ++to
)
;
Whereas the idiomatic version seems simpler:
for (; (*to = *from) != 0; ++from, ++to);
- _mpu 13y agoI agree. I don't understand why people keep trying to deface C. This "indentation" scheme is by all mean ridiculous and not practical. One thing we learn from this article is that the author actually does not program in C.
- Luyt 13y agoWhen I saw that ridiculous formatted for() in the article, I began suspecting the article was meant as a joke.