Messages in this thread | | | From | Jesse Pollard <> | Subject | Re: Question about style when converting from K&R to ANSI C. | Date | Mon, 2 Jun 2003 07:39:12 -0500 |
| |
On Sunday 01 June 2003 09:06, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > Sometimes it is nice to be able to see function names with a > > > > > > grep '^[a-zA-Z].*(' *.c > > > > This will return 'int foo(void)', what's the problem ? > > You get a lot of other false hits, like globals. I don't feel strongly > about this, I'm more wondering why this style was choosen. The way > I showed is pretty common, it's sort of the "Unix" way (it's how the > original Unix guys did it, how BSD did it, and how the GNU guys do it), so > it's a somewhat surprising difference. I've never understood the logic. > The more I think about it the less I understand it, doing it that way > means you are more likely to have to wrap a function definition which > is ugly: > > static inline int cdrom_write_check_ireason(ide_drive_t *drive, int len, > int ireason) { > }
Actually, that would most likely be: static inline int cdrom_write_check_ireason( ide_drive_t *drive, int len, int ireason ) { ... }
At least If I were doing it. Over my 20 years, I've found that many of MY type errors are due to returning or expecting the wrong structure/variable because I forgot the type of the function.
I rarely have to look at the parameters (though when I do, I locate them via the function name, then scan the parameters...) sometimes just to count the number of parameters, or the order, which is easier when the parameters are one to a line. Either as in K&R, or the new style.
- 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/
| |