Comment by prewett | Hacker News Reader

Comment by prewett | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think it's more idiomatic because otherwise you have to do:

  char c = EOF;
  while (c != EOF) {
    c = getchar();
    ...
  }

The idiomatic way reads better: "while next character is not EOF".

Your (excellent) example of bad style is bad because it reads poorly: "if the result of the assignment of bar & 0xf to foo is true". Not only that, but it is not obvious what the result of an assignment is, if anything. (Yes, I do know it is the value, but personally, I think <nothing> is a more logical result).

Don't you mean

    char c = getchar();
    while (c != EOF) {
        c = getchar();
        …
    }

?

Which not only reads badly but requires writing the "producer" twice. Though alternatively you could:

    while (1) {
        c = getchar();
        if (c == EOF) { break; }
        ...
    }

    char c;
    do {
        c = getchar();
    } while (c != EOF);

This is worse, in most cases as you normally want to do something to c after you have read it, forcing you to re-check the condition

    int c; //a char can't represent EOF
    do {
        c = getchar();
        if (c != EOF) {
           //do stuff
        }
    } while (c != EOF);

Reply on news.ycombinator.com