Re: Fixing a sample from K&R book using cake static analyser

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
 

On 2024-06-24, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:53:51 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>

Too many different paths in the control flow, though. I think it’s a
good idea to minimize that.

>
Your non-solution has more.

>
My solution only has one major flow of control: in the top and out the
bottom.

>
This is false. Every branch in the code creates a separate control
flow path.

 L D'O is surely just trolling.  Do you think he actually considers his
non-solution to be a good bit of code?  Do you think he really doesn't
know what a path through some code is?  He's making up terms like "major
flow of control" just to keep people talking, and I admit it's working!
 

Everything else is error checks, and it is quite obvious where
they all go--through the same cleanup path.

>
Your solution intertwines both cases together and jumbles the error
handling between other logic, requiring the reader to untangle all
that.

 And it's not a solution.  It has both a syntax error and a case missing
(replacing an existing definition).  I think he's just chucking code out
there to get a reaction.  It wasn't obvious at first because old-style
trolls are so rare these days