Re: pgindent vs try/catch

OK, it never removed braces from things like:

int x;

{
int x;
x=5;
}

but anyway I think we all agree it was uglifying the code more than it
was clarifying.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gaetano Mendola wrote:
[ PGP not available, raw data follows ]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> | Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> |
> |>>I had that argument a while ago with Bruce and lost :-) . It does horrible
> |>>things to if/else constructs too. The workaround is to put a comment in the
> |>>block. On the whole I agree with you, though. If I put braces in my program
> |>>it's for a reason, and the indenter shouldn't think it knows better than me.
> |>
> |>Well I'm not exactly a C coder, I'm a C++ one and it's quite common use the
> |>extra scope in order to reduce the automatic variable life, I don't know how
> |>much the extra scope are used in the C world, however remove an "extra scope"
> |>like that is not only "horrible", is *wrong* and can be cause of future pain:
> |>
> |>
> |>foo ( int a )
> |>{
> |> ...
> |> {
> |> int a;
> |> }
> |> // use the formal parameter
> |>}
> |>
> |>if the extra scope is removed the local variable "shadow" the formal
> |>parameter. Some compilers do not warning you, IIRC the Digital had this funny omission,
> |>( however you can miss the warning ) and hours of debugging are behind the corner.
> |>I hope that Bruce change his mind...
> |
> |
> | I am a little confused by the above. It only removes braces that have
> | one command in them.
>
> This was not clear to me.
>
>
> | What does "use the formal parameter" mean?
>
> Emm, the variable argument I mean, is not "formal parameter" the right name ?
>
>
> | FYI, C doesn't allow variables to be declared in for() like that, but I am
> | still curious how C++ handles such cases.
>
> the { ... } in c++ represent an extra scope this means that at the end of the
> scope all variable declared inside are destroyed. A common way to use it is to
> surround critical sections:
>
> void foo( int a )
> {
> ~ Mutex m;
> ~ ...
> ~ {
> ~ Lock myLock(m); // The lock is acquired inside the constructor
> ~ int a = 5;
> ~ //critical section code follow
> ~ ...
> ~ } // The unlock is performed in the destructor
> };
>
> at the end of the scope the destructor for the variable myLock is called.
> In this way the lock is released ( with the appropriate code in the destructor)
> without remember to unlock it and most important the lock is released also if
> an exception is thrown; inside that extra scope the variable
> "a" hide the function parameter, this code is perfectly legal in C++.
>
> In the case of the for if you declare for ( A a = ... ) { } the lifespan
> for the object a is the "for" body, and ansi C++ allow the reuse so you can have:
>
> for ( A a = ... ) { }
> for ( A a = ... ) { }
>
>
> | I have no problem in removing this pgindent behavior.
>
> I don't know all the implication in removing it or leave it, however I agree to
> leave the extra scope in place.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFBRNi37UpzwH2SGd4RAgrlAKDo+xL+Vo8+2vyfpnhxmmPyEJOhXwCgpc4h
> 8cdAPGv/fqWE3UY2bRe4rlI=
> =Wbra
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
[ End of raw data]

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073