>>7
Yes, that is acceptable as part of another statement.
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-16 12:00
>>8
It seems like get_something is unrelated with (p) which has a foo method. I don't like it.
can it be done like this: get_something (p) .foo ();? ...well, still sucks!
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-16 12:08
>>9
The answer is perhaps to not use that construct.
If you only do one thing with the something you get, there's probably a better way, then you can remove the get_something() method entirely.
If you do more than one thing, it's probably better to do this: var something = get_something (p);
something.foo(); /* No arguments = no space? Discuss. */
something.bar();
Name:
Anonymous2010-07-16 12:21
a = hello (&world); Or a = hello(&world);
No difference. They'll both do the same thing.
As for style, the only true requirements is that the code is readable and the style remains consistent.
(If the multiline quote above fails, then once again I've failed to figure out how it works.)
>>11 > a = hello (&world);[o]
Or[o]
a = hello(&world);[/o][/o]
No difference. They'll both do the same thing.
As for style, the only true requirements is that the code is readable and the style remains consistent.
a = hello (&world);
Or
a = hello(&world);
No difference. They'll both do the same thing.
As for style, the only true requirements is that the code is readable and the style remains consistent.