What about letting x.( ... ? ... ) be equivalent to ( ... x ... )

[daniel delay]

Fredrik Lundh a écrit :
> ddelay at club-internet.fr wrote:
> 
> 
>>These 3 intermediate variables used to improve readability
>>can introduce bugs : you have to check that b, c and d are
>>not used anywhere else in the code.
> 
> 
> if you have a fear of introducing new local variables, you have problems
> that cannot be solved by syntax.
> 
> </F>
> 

Before to introduce a new variable named "x", you have to take care of 
the fact the name "x" is not defined elsewhere and visible in the 
present scope. It is not a fear, but something you must keep in mind, 
otherwise it can be a source of errors.

If you have a syntax in which you use less variables names to do the 
same thing, with the same (or better?) readability, that seems better 
for me.