"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:40213f9a$1@news.povray.org...


> if something happens and fails
>   do something, like return.
>
> do something if it works

No, more like:

if something happens and fails
    Handle the error, If the error cannot be dealt with,
    Display a message to the user. (i.e. "Unable to open test.png, Please
check that
    the file exists and try again."), and return. If the error can be dealt
with without
    bothering the user, i.e. a situation such as opening the file, and
discovering it is not
    in the exact format as expected, try other formats. (See above if
correction fails).
   after dealing with the error successfully, continue.

Otherwise, just continue.


> where I must have done this

> if something happens and it works
>    do something
> else
>    handle the error

Essentially you have this:

if(operation_1 successful)
    [do stuff]
        if(operation_2 successful)
            [do stuff]
            .
            .
            .
        else
            [Print panic message, Bail Out]
else
    [Print panic message, Bail Out]

Instead of that, this makes more sense:

if(operation_1 failed)
    Handle Error, Drop out if necessary

[do stuff]

if(operation_2 failed)
     Handle Error, Drop out if necessary

[do stuff]

.
.
.

Really, which makes more sense?

> Now PAY ATTENTION. Like all the other points, I'm not saying your WRONG
for
> doing it your way. Nor am I say I'm RIGHT for doing it my way. I'm saying
it
> is a matter of style and they're both RIGHT. Or both WRONG if you're a cup
> is half-empty kind of guy.

I was paying attention. I think my details above demonstrate this a bit more
clearly.

> > > more than a million now... lines of code that I've written have all
said
> > > that my code is so readable that they consider it "self-documenting".
> >
> > Wow. You truly are arrogant!
>
> Why? I mean, I am, but why do you say that after that paragraph?

Read the above quoted paragraph. something about "[they] have all said
that my code is so readable that they consider it 'self-documenting'". That
is a truely arrogant thing to say.

> > Anyway -- Nesting blocks deeper and deeper is
> > bound to cause problems with code readability.
>
> ...yes, I agree, that's why I said you should seperate things out into
> methods if it gets too nested.

I needed mentioning due to your example of If's and Elses scattered
everywhere to handle error conditions.

>
> People who write code 10 nested ten levels deep are not good coders.
>

Was that a necessary comment?

> Listen, if you guys don't understand your code enough to free freeing
> something that isn't a pointer, then you really ought to be using Visual
> Basic or something. C isn't for the timid or for those who don't pay
> attention.

It's not about not understanding one's own code. It's more along the lines
of returning to a significantly large code-base and adding changes (perhaps
in the example given to resolve memory leaks). Getting into the habit of
casting something for the sake of casting it gains nothing and can cause
major headaches.

> that would be arrogant; a word you are misusing anyway, since arrogant
means
> having a higher opinion of oneself than generally warranted and when I say

Obviously.

> I'm arrogant I'm tongue-and-cheek because more times than I can count now
> I've said: a. I don't know everything, b. I'm here to learn more, and c.
You
> guys know a lot! But, you're not reacting to what I say, but you're
reacting
> out of defensiveness (probably because I use the word "you" a lot or
> something). No, I don't fit with people like you and I never have because
I
> confront. I'm sure you even took the /last sentence/ as an offense because
> of the "like you" part. You are probably imaging tone in the sentence just
> to support your perception of me because you've made up your mind.

I don't necessarily think it's defensiveness. I think some of it is sheer
irritation.

> If you're going to make a claim like that, you'd better support it. Plus,
I
> don't use words like epitome. I'm not trying to make people think I'm
smart
> by using pretentious words. I aim to communicate not obfuscate.

I'm not trying to "look" smart by using the words I use. If I wanted to
"look" smart, then I would have used a spelling and grammar checker before
sending the post. If you don't understand the word, look it up.
http://www.dictionary.com is a good place to start. In this case, I would
say that epitome was an appropriate word:

[From Dictionary.com]


1.  A representative or example of a class or type: "He is seen... as the
epitome of the hawkish, right-of-center intellectual" (Paul Kennedy).

2.  A brief summary, as of a book or article; an abstract.

> I'm sorry, I mean to write "No, it's not." And how many times can I write
> that I don't know everything and admit to things I'm wrong about until you
> stop having this internalized perception about me? 10? 20? No, seriously,
> I'm askin'.

<sigh> My perception of you is borne out of the way you've missandled
constructive criticism on your code.

> > begin to describe how much overhead you are incurring. I think, by way
of
> > the fact that you are using fflush in the context you are using it in
only
> > strengthens everyone's point that you really don't know what you are
> talking
> > about, and you really don't know when to shut up.
>
> Talk about fallacious arguments. This is a standard one, actually, where
by
> saying that one fact is true, then all other facts are true. You're saying
> that because I misunderstood how fflush works that, therefore, I don't
know
> what I'm talking about and should shut up. So, since I'm upfront, I'll
tell
> you why I continue this thread:

No. I'm saying your arguments are full of logical flaws because you do not
understand everything, but act as if you do. And I didn't say you should
shut up. Re-read the above quoted sentence. You do not know WHEN to shut up.
At some point you have to shrug and walk away.

> 1. It amuses me. You'll take that as arrogant. Go ahead, but if you look
it
> up, it isn't.

This thread amuses me, as well. You amuse me.

> 2. On usenet, if you flame somebody like you have, you reap what you sow.
> You want a flame war, you got one; I don't mind a battle. You don't want
> one, then you need to learn when to shut up yourself.

I'd say you asked for it... but, then what do I know?

> I'll map it out. Warp is continuing to bash my coding abilities to make
> himself sound competent. Whether he is making a fool out of himself is
just
> a matter of perspective.

I think you're twisting what people are saying to you in your head, I'm sure
I'll be soon arguing against myself, just like Warp.

> If you read the posts, I'm the guy on the defense here, not you. When you
> say somebody isn't worth listening to, you're asking for a fight. Oh no;
now
> you got one, and you're complaining?

Er, I think you were asking for the fight. Defensiveness is usually caused
by a lack of confidence.

> Where have I not owned up... wait, wait, you haven't read the previous
> postings, have you? This is a long thread. I'll give you time to catch up.
> I'll wait.

Ok. So you have "owned-up", after having it driven into your head that what
you were doing wasn't necessarily the best way to go about it.

> Yes. The point is, if you can't take the heat, don't burn the kitchen. Or,
a
> more biblical reference, he who is without programming sin cast the first
> stone. For clarity, he did not cast stones until after TF's comment. I
> really enjoyed his critique of my code and I value it.

Did anybody come here and ask you to start a flame-war?

> I've never said you were stupid. I'm responding to people saying I'm
stupid.
> I guess I do care because I keep writing. But, again, it's not a sign of
> insecurity, but instead, the joy of a good fight.

This seems to be trollish behavior.

> What you don't know is that those aren't quasi. If you want proof of that,
> look earlier in the thread where I patted Warp on the back way before this
> flame ever started. But, I can understand your perception if you're just
> jumping-in now.

"I think you're a great person, but you're such an impudent jerk for
correcting my code when I posted it publically" -- Essentially what I said
you're doing you're doing.

> Okay. You're entitled to that opinion. Injecting your 2 cents worth
doesn't
> kill threads, though, so don't try and pretend you're interested in it
> stopping.

Never said I was interested in it stopping, I just wanted to join in the
fun.

> > I think we have found the new BDW.

> Uh oh, another acronym like plonk. I'm cowering. Really. If you want this
> thread to die, stop responding to it. You see, I'm obligated to persue the
> last word because I'm the one defending myself against TF. You aren't
> obligated to continue it.

Nothing like plonk. If you hadn't been living under a rock, you'd know what
it meant, but enough of that. Since when was it an *obligation* to continue
the argument? No one is holding a gun to your head telling you to continue
this.

Post a reply to this message