<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Operator Precedence in ColdFusion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.simonwhatley.co.uk/operator-precedence-in-coldfusion/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.simonwhatley.co.uk/operator-precedence-in-coldfusion</link>
	<description>The opposite of every great idea is another great idea</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Adrian J. Moreno</title>
		<link>http://www.simonwhatley.co.uk/operator-precedence-in-coldfusion#comment-3063</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrian J. Moreno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simonwhatley.co.uk/operator-precedence-in-coldfusion#comment-3063</guid>
		<description>As a former Math major and after wading through years' worth of someone else's legacy code, I would love to make parentheses a required part of coding standards. I love that you used such a simple example to show what kind of errors can occur based on how one person reads vs. another (vs. a computer). The same can be said with some of the code I saw last year: 

cfif x AND y AND z OR a AND b OR c AND d

WTF? 

cfif (x AND y) AND (z OR ( a AND b) OR (c AND d))

Ah. Ok.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a former Math major and after wading through years&#8217; worth of someone else&#8217;s legacy code, I would love to make parentheses a required part of coding standards. I love that you used such a simple example to show what kind of errors can occur based on how one person reads vs. another (vs. a computer). The same can be said with some of the code I saw last year: </p>
<p>cfif x AND y AND z OR a AND b OR c AND d</p>
<p>WTF? </p>
<p>cfif (x AND y) AND (z OR ( a AND b) OR (c AND d))</p>
<p>Ah. Ok.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan G. Switzer, II</title>
		<link>http://www.simonwhatley.co.uk/operator-precedence-in-coldfusion#comment-3062</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan G. Switzer, II</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:41:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.simonwhatley.co.uk/operator-precedence-in-coldfusion#comment-3062</guid>
		<description>Good post.

I always use parentheses not only do I prefer explicit precedence, I believe it's much easier to interpret the code to the human eye.

While "3 + 4 * 5" may behave like you intended, it's too easy to accidentally interpret this as "(3 + 4) * 5" when you looking at the code. Explicitly writing the code as "3 + (4 * 5)" makes it very clear on the intend formula.

This hold true for operators as well...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post.</p>
<p>I always use parentheses not only do I prefer explicit precedence, I believe it&#8217;s much easier to interpret the code to the human eye.</p>
<p>While &#8220;3 + 4 * 5&#8243; may behave like you intended, it&#8217;s too easy to accidentally interpret this as &#8220;(3 + 4) * 5&#8243; when you looking at the code. Explicitly writing the code as &#8220;3 + (4 * 5)&#8221; makes it very clear on the intend formula.</p>
<p>This hold true for operators as well&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
