Daniel Lehman <dlehman25(a)gmail.com> wrote:
+ if (curr) { + for (; attrIndex < index; attrIndex++) { + if (curr->next == NULL) + break; + else + curr = curr->next; + }
I understand that this is mostly a personal preference and there are other places that use similar style, but wouldn't it be more clear without 'else' or even this way: if (curr) { for (; attrIndex < index && curr->next != NULL; attrIndex++) { curr = curr->next; }
+ for (; attrIndex < index; attrIndex++) { + if (ns->next == NULL) return S_FALSE; else - curr = curr->next; + ns = ns->next; }
Same question about redundant 'else'. -- Dmitry.