Comments on: Return * http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/ The journal of Paul M. Watson Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:30:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-beta1 hourly 1 By: Shog9 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/comment-page-1/#comment-8180 Shog9 Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:14:22 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/#comment-8180 If you're talking to idiots, use small words. If you're writing for idiots, use simple constructs.<br>And that's enough about <i>that</i>. If you’re talking to idiots, use small words. If you’re writing for idiots, use simple constructs.
And that’s enough about that.

]]> By: Shog9 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/comment-page-1/#comment-11721 Shog9 Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:14:22 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/#comment-11721 If you're talking to idiots, use small words. If you're writing for idiots, use simple constructs.<br>And that's enough about <i>that</i>. If you’re talking to idiots, use small words. If you’re writing for idiots, use simple constructs.
And that’s enough about that.

]]> By: Shog9 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/comment-page-1/#comment-1161 Shog9 Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:14:22 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/#comment-1161 If you're talking to idiots, use small words. If you're writing for idiots, use simple constructs. And that's enough about <i>that</i>. If you’re talking to idiots, use small words. If you’re writing for idiots, use simple constructs.
And that’s enough about that.

]]> By: Paul Watson http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/comment-page-1/#comment-8179 Paul Watson Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:50:59 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/#comment-8179 Absolutely right Andrew. That is why I said "in moderation." Got to know when to break your own rules. Absolutely right Andrew. That is why I said “in moderation.” Got to know when to break your own rules.

]]> By: Paul Watson http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/comment-page-1/#comment-11720 Paul Watson Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:50:59 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/#comment-11720 Absolutely right Andrew. That is why I said "in moderation." Got to know when to break your own rules. Absolutely right Andrew. That is why I said “in moderation.” Got to know when to break your own rules.

]]> By: Paul Watson http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/comment-page-1/#comment-1160 Paul Watson Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:50:59 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/#comment-1160 Absolutely right Andrew. That is why I said "in moderation." Got to know when to break your own rules. Absolutely right Andrew. That is why I said “in moderation.” Got to know when to break your own rules.

]]> By: Andrew Peace http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/comment-page-1/#comment-8178 Andrew Peace Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:50:30 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/#comment-8178 I think this is correct to some extent, but as with most rules, the best coders, IMO, know when to break them. I'd probably re-define this to say "only have well-known and obvious return points".<br><br>When tidying up some code that had seriously evolved beyond its original purpose recently, one of the most useful and important things I did was consolidate and audit the return and exit paths, and make them sane and obvious. This really helped the clarity of the code. I think this is correct to some extent, but as with most rules, the best coders, IMO, know when to break them. I’d probably re-define this to say “only have well-known and obvious return points”.

When tidying up some code that had seriously evolved beyond its original purpose recently, one of the most useful and important things I did was consolidate and audit the return and exit paths, and make them sane and obvious. This really helped the clarity of the code.

]]> By: Andrew Peace http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/comment-page-1/#comment-11719 Andrew Peace Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:50:30 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/#comment-11719 I think this is correct to some extent, but as with most rules, the best coders, IMO, know when to break them. I'd probably re-define this to say "only have well-known and obvious return points".<br><br>When tidying up some code that had seriously evolved beyond its original purpose recently, one of the most useful and important things I did was consolidate and audit the return and exit paths, and make them sane and obvious. This really helped the clarity of the code. I think this is correct to some extent, but as with most rules, the best coders, IMO, know when to break them. I’d probably re-define this to say “only have well-known and obvious return points”.

When tidying up some code that had seriously evolved beyond its original purpose recently, one of the most useful and important things I did was consolidate and audit the return and exit paths, and make them sane and obvious. This really helped the clarity of the code.

]]> By: Andrew Peace http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/comment-page-1/#comment-1159 Andrew Peace Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:50:30 +0000 http://paulmwatson.com/journal/2006/08/18/return/#comment-1159 I think this is correct to some extent, but as with most rules, the best coders, IMO, know when to break them. I'd probably re-define this to say "only have well-known and obvious return points". When tidying up some code that had seriously evolved beyond its original purpose recently, one of the most useful and important things I did was consolidate and audit the return and exit paths, and make them sane and obvious. This really helped the clarity of the code. I think this is correct to some extent, but as with most rules, the best coders, IMO, know when to break them. I’d probably re-define this to say “only have well-known and obvious return points”.

When tidying up some code that had seriously evolved beyond its original purpose recently, one of the most useful and important things I did was consolidate and audit the return and exit paths, and make them sane and obvious. This really helped the clarity of the code.

]]>