![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread
|
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 07:06:02AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > It may be just what you are used to but I also find that when reading lots > of code it is nice to have it look like Well, I think it's the _main_ reason for most of us coding this way. When you're used to read it this way, it seems completely normal, and other methods seem strange. I even used to put the opening brace on the same line as the function, because I don't like having a line with a single char, I find it a wast of screen space. But the kernel coding style slowly makes me move forward to its method. > return type > function_name(args) > > because the function_name() stands out more, it's always at the left side so > I tend to parse it a little more quickly. I can agree with you on this point. It's only that since I'm not used to read it this way, I have to make an effort finding the type, even if it's just above. I will try to use this method just to see if I can feel comfortable with it. > Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that you should go reformat all your > code (I tend to agree with Linus, if it's not your code, don't stick your > fingers in there just because you want to reformat it). All I'm doing > is trying to understand why in this instance did Linux diverage from > common practice. I just found through google that C programs are indeed formated as you say, but C++ programs have the type on the same line as the name. So if this comes from this origin, we'll be able to say that Linux contains no C++ except its formating :-) Cheers, Willy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||