allowing braces around suites

[Steve Holden]

Antoon Pardon wrote:

> Op 2004-08-31, Ville Vainio schreef <ville at spammers.com>:
> 
>>>>>>>"Antoon" == Antoon Pardon <apardon at forel.vub.ac.be> writes:
>>
>>   Antoon> The nesting reflects the structure of the algorithm. If an
>>   Antoon> algorithm is best described by the nesting of a number of
>>   Antoon> control structures then i don't see how you are going to
>>   Antoon> remove that nesting.
>>
>>Functions and classes?
> 
> 
> If you need a function or class just to avoid nesting, then IMO
> you have only camoeflaged it. In order to understand what is
> going on you still need to understand how the nesting of
> a number of controls prroduce a certain result and when
> you write a function just to avoid nesting it often enough
> makes readablity harder.
> 
I'm afraid that's bollocks, equivalent to saying that building an 
airliner by connecting subassamblies together is just camouflaging the 
complexity.

Presumably your chosen method would be to assemble a pile of all the 
parts and then just stick them together one by one? God help the test 
pilot if so...

[One of] the point[s] about classes and functions is precisely that they 
do allow you to reduce the complexity by providing repeatable unit 
behavior which you can test before you rely on them in your higher-level 
logic.

The alternative is monolithic programs, which are well known to be 
difficult to compile and maintain.

If your program logic is too deeply nested with conditions then 
functions and classes provide a powerful logical abstraction to fight 
the complexity and improve code reliability and maintainability.

regards
  Steve