Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:20:08 +0100 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][1/5][resend] floppy.c: Initial (partial) CodingStyle cleanup |
| |
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 07:18:38PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: >... > The second reason is that indenting two tabs seems to make the most sense for > a few reasons; > a) not indenting at all is ugly, plain and simple. > void function(int a, int b, > int c, int d, int e) > { > int foo; > int bar; > ... > } > b) indenting only one tab stop puts parameters at the same indent level as > variables in the function which is potentially confusing (at least IMHO). > void function(int a, int b, > int c, int d, int e) > { > int foo; > int bar; > ... > } > c) Indenting so that all parameter lines start at the opening paranthesis > rarely matches up with tabs so you have to use varying amounts of spaces > depending on how long the function name is. Not a good solution IMHO. > void function(int a, int b, > int c, int d, int e) >...
Your example is wrong, it's:
void function(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e)
This is the most common convention in the kernel - and except for extremely long function names it's the one with the best readability.
Yes, it's a problem with extremely long function names, but they are rare in the kernel.
And the "varying amounts of spaces" should be handled automatically by your editor.
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |