>Also on a personal note I think reversing the test like this is not a
>good idea. If you know about the possibility of using = instead of ==
>then why not just take an extra moment to ensure you've used ==
>rather
>than taking an extra moment to reverse the operands? Makes the code
>header to read (IMHO). I think you're better off writing clean easy
>to
>read code and catching errors like =/== transposition via lint.


This guy makes a similar in English, writing something that is
syntactically correct but semantically means nothing.  Check out the
word "header" -- I guess he means "harder."

Apparently he does not "know about the possibility of using" the
wrong words, leading me to believe that he employs similar practices
when reviewing his own code.

I "know about the possibility of" bugs in my code and in my writing;
still, that alone doesn't prevent them.

Cheers,


Bill Borgia

P.S.  After proofreading my note, I found that the sentence in
question isn't even syntactically correct.