quote:Original post by CWizard
Well... I doIt''s a habit of mine.
.
quote:Original post by CWizardHmm, overcommenting is actually kind of bad. With such simple code, it's actually faster to read the code to understand what it does, than to read all those comments. And editing the code will be easier with less comments, since one doesn't have to change the comments after every small change in the code.
Well... I do
). I should've commented what the first loop does and what the last loop does, since those are quite big structural elements. But in real life, I would've extracted those two parts in to their own methods and given them descriptive names likequote:I always declare all variables I'm using in the function at the top with an explaination of it's usage in the function, so I easily can see what a variable is used to by looking at the top.That's not a good way to do it IMO. Giving variables too much scope will more likely confuse the reader about the intent of the variable. (S)he may have to check through a lot of code to see if that variable is still used somewhere else, when it's not. If a variable has little scope, you can immediately say what it does, and that it doesn't do anything else. E.g. I declared "string buffer" inside that while loop, since it's only used there. Sometimes (but rarely) I move declarations outside loops though (right before them), since I think it's faster.
quote:Original post by civguyThat is quite true, and why I applied the
Hmm, overcommenting is actually kind of bad. With such simple code, it''s actually faster to read the code to understand what it does, than to read all those comments.
. I have my habit from my assembly coding, where you need good commenting. I''ve coded only assembly since my 11th winter or so (heading for my 25th now), and only recently started to code in C[++]. But I also need lots of commenting, as my coding style includes all sorts of hacks, tricks, and techniques that are very easy to miss if you''ve been away a while.quote:Giving variables too much scope will more likely confuse the reader about the intent of the variable. (S)he may have to check through a lot of code to see if that variable is still used somewhere else, when it''s not.
void foo() { { int f = getF(); doSomething(f); } { int q = getQ(); doSomethingElse(q); }} quote:Original post by SneftelI take that as an excuse to continue coding my way
Don''t listen to me. I''ve had too much coffee.
class really_big_class {lotsofstuff;}void ugly_function(int variable) {if (variable == 0) return; //invalid parameter, for whatever reasonreally_big_class memory_waster;do_some_stuff_with(memory_waster, variable);} int main(){ const int NUM = 100; double total, amount; double data[NUM]; int count; char buff[20]; total = 0.0; count = 0; do { cout << "Enter amount (or ''end'' to finish): "; cin.get(buff,20); cin.ignore(2000, ''\n''); cout << "You entered ''" << buff << "''" << endl; if (strcmp(buff, "end")==0) break; amount = atof(buff); cout << "Amount: " << amount << endl; if(amount <= 0) { cout << "This value is discarded as incorrect.\n" << "Please reenter it correctly.\n"; } else { total += amount; data[count] = amount; count++; } }while (1 == 1); cout << "\nTotal of " << count << " values is " << total << endl; if (count == 0) return 0; cout << "\nTran no. Amount\n\n"; for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) { cout.width(4); cout << i + 1; cout.width(11); cout << data[i] << endl; } return 0;}[/source quote:Original post by CWizardNOOO! Damn that loophole!
I take that as an excuse to continue coding my way
