home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: ix.netcom.com!netnews
- From: miker3@ix.netcom.com (Mike Rubenstein)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Is there a standard for * and & placement style?
- Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 20:46:40 GMT
- Organization: Netcom
- Message-ID: <313606fa.87475142@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
- References: <3128BD31.4AF8@wildfire.com> <marnoldDn27q9.Is0@netcom.com> <4gckd5$bc7@clarknet.clark.net> <marnoldDn63vB.H6n@netcom.com> <4gihqq$1s9@ns1.arlut.utexas.edu> <4gv9nk$4p2@alpha.it.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-dc12-23.ix.netcom.com
- X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Feb 29 12:46:40 PM PST 1996
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.182
-
- gema001@pn.itnet.it (Antonio Romeo) wrote:
-
- > >...
- > >-- use intelligent variable names
- > >...
- >
- > a bit more on this:
- >
- > intelligent variables names are meaningfull names.
- > So
- >
- > int i; /* loop counter */
- >
- > ...
- >
- > for (i=0;i<MAX; i++)
- > MakeOnArray(arrayname[i]);
- > ...
- >
- > does not is a good name. In a loop, i is the current processed element
- > of an array, the next or the previous?
- > Another good practice is to not make
- > assumption on variable values after al loop, expecialli in a FOR
- > statement. This is true for every language I know. The variable value
- > after a loop depend on compiler (not language) decision.
-
- Not true. There are languages (C and C++ leap to mind) that define
- the value of a loop variable after the end of the loop.
-
-
- Michael M Rubenstein
-