similar to: Documenting else's greed

Indeed, an example in the documentation about this feature would be helpful, may be the one Hugh used. If an explanation is deemed appropriate, I would suggest including something along the lines of the following (after the second paragraph of the Details section for if/while/etc.). =============== In these constructs the opening braces, if any, are part of the expression to be evaluated, not

I'm with Matt on this one. I much prefer the approach of ALWAYS use braces for ifs and for loops, even if they're not needed, for basically the same reasons as he put. The number of times I've added a statement inside an if without braces and forget to add them is annoyingly high, especially as it's not always an obvious error upfront. Similarly, being involved in a downstream

Hi r-devels, I have two minor problems with special characters in Rd files when used within a \preformatted{} markup command: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. issue: backslash + single brace ------------------------------------------------------ I would like to write "\\\}" to produce \} on output (documenting the need to escape the brace once again before

Hi paulr: Thanks for your kindly response. Maybe I don't describe my question cleanly, let me show more information. From my side, I notice that whether we are in the continue keyword mode or we are in the right brace mode, the target of br instruction is the same, i.e. for loop Continue Keyword Mode: ; <label>:6: ; preds = %3 br label

My 2 pennies is braces add unnecessary clutter and impair readability when used on a *single-line* statement. I count comments, that are on their own line as statement(s). For example: BAD: if (cond) // Comment foo(); GOOD: if (cond) { // Comment foo(); } BAD: if (cond) { foo(); // Comment } GOOD: if (cond) foo(); // Comment BAD: if (cond) for(;;) foo() GOOD: if (cond)

If we had a very naïve way of generating IR, in the 'continue' case you would actually see TWO branch instructions: one to implement the 'continue' statement, and one as part of the control flow of the 'for' loop. The branch for the 'continue' statement would have the source location of the 'continue' and the branch for the control-flow of the 'for'

Let me show you the following simple C code: int main() { int i; for (i = 0; i < 256; i++) { i++; } } In this simple C code, if we use Clang to compile it and debug it: We will get something like this: (gdb) b main Breakpoint 1 at 0x100000f7b: file a.c, line 5. (gdb) r Starting program: a.out [New Thread 0x1403 of process 23435] warning: unhandled dyld version (15) Thread 2

I inherited a function written either for an older version of R or SPlus to draw a brace, "{", in a graph. It uses par("uin") to determine the scaling of the quarter circles that make up segments of the brace, but that setting doesn't exist in current R. I'm guessing that, in the function below, ux, uy can be defined from par("usr") and

Remembering a discussion as to why we do this from a few years ago: (*makes note to start writing design decisions this way down somewhere*) I was in favor of the current method for a few reasons: a) ensuring that it would "always happen" that we had either a unified return block or a well propagated location onto return instructions seemed like it would be difficult to maintain and

Above all, think this through: Why is spam so annoying? Because you like the ease and convenience of e-mail, that's why. So your in box matters to you. Over the last decade it has become hugely easier and quicker for you to contact others on a much bigger scale than photocopied letters or even fax machines ever let us dream of. And you resent the fact that hundreds of thousands of

Hi, the proposed fix for CVE-2019-6111 [1] adds file name validation to scp to prevent the server from sending files that the client actually did not request. Now, a consequence of that patch is that commands which contain server-side brace expansions such as $ scp remote:'/etc/{passwd,group}' . error: unexpected filename: passwd no longer work. Shell globs such as [abc], ?, *,

On 02/14/2015 12:03 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:36 AM, J Martin Rushton > <martinrushton56 at btinternet.com> wrote: >> <snip> >>> To understand it completely you need to know the order of >>> operations as the shell makes multiple passes over the line, >>> parsing, processing metacharacters, and expanding variables. And

Hello there, I was wondering if anyone might be able to help me as I'm pretty new to R. I'm trying to create a boxplot from a data table returned from an sproc. I have the following code, which generates the plot as I'd like it: library("RODBC"); conn <- odbcConnect("datawarehouse"); # connect to datawarehouse results <- sqlQuery(conn, "call

Hello. Building R-patched from source on Win64 using current Rtools 3.5.0.4, I?m getting the following notes indicating an extra left brace somewhere; or is the problem on my end? My installed Perl is Strawberry 5.28.0.1-64 bit. Thank you, Avi (Sent from an iPhone, so my apologies if HTML also comes through) ------ Making HTML documentation ------ creating doc/manual/version.texi creating

I recently updated the kernel on an Ubuntu 11.04 PVM domU. The dom0 is an up to date Debian Squeeze host (Xen 4.0.1). Attempting to start the domU after this with xm create gives "Error: Boot loader didn''t return any data!". I ran pygrub against the domU manually, I got the following: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/xen-default/bin/pygrub", line

I'll note that reading along I haven't found any of the proposed changes particularly worthwhile.  I'm also not strongly opposed to any of them - I just don't care - but I certainly haven't been convinced there's any clear benefit to be had by changing our current policy. Philip On 6/22/20 1:44 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > For those who don’t like it, is

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:37 AM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2020, at 11:02 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> > wrote: > > I'll note that reading along I haven't found any of the proposed changes > particularly worthwhile. I'm also not strongly opposed to any of them - I > just don't care

I have implemented this exact behavior in an out of tree LLVM fork I maintain, where one of my users needed this behavior, and it seems to work well. What we have done is extend the definition of DISubprogram to contain a new field "endLine" which holds the line number of the closing brace. A pass late in our backend uses this information to set the DebugLoc of return instructions in our

I think that this is because `[<-` dispatches on S4 methods only if the first argument is S4. ?"[<-" says: "These operators are also implicit S4 generics, but as primitives, S4 methods will be dispatched only on S4 objects ?x?." Georgi Boshnakov -----Original Message----- Message: 19 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 22:04:44 -0400 From: Ben Bolker <bbolker at

Did this conversation reach a conclusion? My ad hoc tally says that a slight majority of the responders preferred to fully brace statements and no one wanted to totally eliminate braces. The technical arguments for fully braced statements were 1) it's considered a slightly safer coding style and 2) commit diffs with fully braced statements may be slightly more to the point. I didn't