Rafael Silva <rafaeloliveira.cs@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > That's a good point (and nice explanation, by the way). Before I was > thinking more on the line "while we do not found a good line from > process_line() and we do not finish processing the file, let's go to > the next line" which lead me to proposed changes for shorten the code. > > However, after your explanation, I can see now and agree the original > does seems easier to follow and we can as it is. Well, it is very possible if you come with your version of a similar loop in three months in a *new* codepath, I may say that it is a good way to write it. As I said, I do not mind shorter and crisper code. What I am saying is that I may have preference but it is not so strong one in this case, and certainly it is not strong enough to suggest rewriting one way to the other when the initial variant in the patch (which may be either one) is good enough. Thanks.
