🚀 go-pugleaf

On 10 Sep 1995 04:38:50 GMT in article <42tq4q$7qt@rdsunx.crd.ge.com>
    volpe@bart.crd.ge.com (Christopher R. Volpe) (Christopher R.
Volpe) wrote:

>In article <42s5su$4h8@inforamp.net>, pcurran@inforamp.net (Peter Curran) writes:
>>
>>Since I got myself into this, here's a solution:
>>
>[elided]
>>
>>I'm not sure that this is exactly how I'd write this in a real-world
>>situation, but it does the job without multiple returns and without
>>deep nesting.

>Not bad. It does continue with unnecessary processing even after one of
>the variables was found to be NULL, but I prefer it over the multiple
>indentations.

Just to be clear, the only extra processing is evaluating some extra
conditions - the effect of the code is the same as the original, I
think.  I'm not concerned about that, unless some performance analysis
can demonstrate it has a detectable effect.

>Of course, I still prefer the immediate return best :-)

So you're a fool :-) :-) :-) :-)
(That's the appropriate response at this point in a flame war,
according to standard netiquette, isn't it?)


--
Peter Curran                               pcurran@inforamp.net