Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:33:00 +0200 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/10] vfs: Lindentified namespace.c |
| |
On Sat, 17 September 2005 13:34:57 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:18:48PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote: > > > > It is an approximation. In my personal experience, the "-l80" > > parameter is doing a lot of harm. It causes things like > > > > if (...) > > for (...) > > while (...) > > if (...) > > for (...) > > while (...) > > some_function(argument, > > very_long_argument, > > another_argument, > > 0, > > 1, > > NULL > > ); > > ... show up as unreadable crap they are. I fail to see a problem... > Fix them and run Lindent again, that's it.
Without -l80, this crap takes up fewer lines. Such things usually occur in 500+ line functions, not counting Lindent expansion. Getting a fair amount of those lines on the screen helps when fixing things up.
But that's just my personal approach. As long as the results are sane, it doesn't really matter.
> Lindent behaviour wrt labels is far more annoying, ditto for the mess it > often makes out of prototypes (demonstrated in the patch in question). > > IME the best way to use Lindent is to do vi -c 's/[[:space:]]*$//|x' foo.c > first, then run Lindent, then walk through prototypes and fix them, > diff with pre-Lindent version and see if it looks sane...
You're lucky. I've had to deal with code where the diff with pre-Lindent version was completely pointless. Original was so broken, there was no room for regressions.
Jörn
-- "Error protection by error detection and correction." -- from a university class - 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/
| |