Re: Standards question: What is yourfeeling about %found&%eofvs.%found(file) & %eof(file) ?

Wilt, Charles wrote:

Funny, I have a BS in CS also, and I _have_ heard of such a notion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself

Hadn't heard of Andrew Hunt, David Thomas, or "The Pragmatic
Programmer," out of which the notion came, but just based on the
Wikipedia article on that opus, I can say that I strongly disagree with
the notion that, as a programmer, being an early adopter is "pragmatic."
Using old tools rarely gets one into compatibility problems, whereas
using "bleeding edge" ones almost guarantees them.

On the other hand, I strongly agree with the "jack of all trades"
characteristic, and if more programmers took the effort to learn a wide
variety of languages (and to understand their strengths and weaknesses),
we wouldn't have so many one-language programmers dogmatically insisting
their language they use is ideal for all situations.

At any rate, though the idea that

When the DRY principle is applied successfully, a modification of any
single element of a system does not change other logically-unrelated
elements.

actually argues in favor of using qualified EOF/FOUND: certainly an EOF/FOUND check is "logically related" to whatever file access might have raised the conditions. If an intervening statement is later added, accessing another file, then it would certainly be "logically-unrelated" to the file you're checking, and yet it would change the meaning of the check.