Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Fixing a sample from K&R book using cake static analyser
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:06:43 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <87v81xmasc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v53sl1$35qt7$1@dont-email.me> <v558hv$3dskb$1@dont-email.me>
	<20240623034624.135@kylheku.com> <87wmmfq4if.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<20240624012527.8bbe16b96f5bfca10feadb5c@gmail.moc>
	<87zfrbnsvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v5aeue$j1nj$4@dont-email.me>
	<87ikxyobls.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v5ctt1$15hrn$3@dont-email.me>
	<20240624180824.534@kylheku.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:06:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b2e0149f9e88712508ba5999d7ddf609";
	logging-data="1655192"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18nBlHmidPisZFeAq54xcGSOsU/yL9jy8k="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:czyZFDyWNqu0dbGwlEOC5vW6rvU=
	sha1:7uZTg+ZYQ6Pwa1Oj7LsNjKClR34=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.83bc978e01f0577cf030.20240625140643BST.87v81xmasc.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Bytes: 2748

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

-- 
Ben.