[swift]

I agree, but to be fair, goto fail was not really caused by the lack of curly braces around an if statement body. It was caused by inadequate code review and lack of testing coverage. The latter especially is inexcusable in security-critical code.

[paulddraper]

"The building's collapse was not caused by poor choices in materials, but by inadequate inspection procedures."

Any number of things could have prevented the bug. So lets do all of them.

[taeric]

That logic clearly fails, though. You will never do everything to prevent a failure. (As an example, there are almost always stronger materials. Cost is a requirement,)

Though, your point here is interesting. Using curlies probably could have stopped that bug. Using static analysis that saw dead code definitely would have stopped it.

In this case, mechanisms (automatic checking for dead code) are vastly superior to good intentions (always using curlies).

[paulddraper]

You're right.

I didn't mean literally everything. I mean everything that has more benefits than costs. I consider consistent curly brace style to fit in that category.

[taeric]

Consistent is nice. There are place where it is consistent to not use them, though.

And to be clear, I find that just as weird as you probably do. :)

[loeg]

Out of millions of CVEs, one is plausibly related to this coding style. I don't think that's a strong argument for using the more verbose style. If we saw this all the time it might be a different matter.

I think it is a strong argument for compilers' -Wall to detect misindented statements directly following unbracketed conditional expressions, though.

[chris_wot]

Does this make it a moo-t point?

[paulddraper]

Also a strong argument for Python's syntax :)

[Grue3]

Except in Python both the incorrect and correct code are syntactically valid and the error cannot be detected by auto-formatter.