lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [v4l-dvb-maintainer] [PULL] http://linuxtv.org/hg/~mcisely/pvrusb2
Date
Mike Isely wrote:

>> If you need this kind of safety measures against errors in future code
>> changes, could it be that you have some general QA problems?

That's always a problem with humans in the loop. I very much agree that
one line or three is far safer against a hasty line insertion than only two.

In my own code I write one if it fits, three if it doesn't. Being easy
to read is good, being hard to misread is better.
>
> One of the points behind a good coding style is that it should encourage
> code that is robust against trivial mistakes. Prefering
>
> if (a) {
> b;
> }
>
> over
>
> if (a)
> b;
>
> I consider to be an example of this kind of simple safety. (And I have
> in the past seen people getting burned from the obvious error of
> sticking a debug printf in between.) ACTUALLY, I'd much, much rather
> prefer
>
> if (a) b;
>
> however checkpatch.pl gets angry about that as well (even though the
> kernel CodingStyle document would seem to actually allow this - it's
> still one statement and since "b" is outside the normal flow then it's
> "something to hide" and should be ok in any case).
>
>
>> (However, why waste time arguing over braces or not?)
>
> Tell that to those who would use checkpatch.pl to gate incoming
> changesets.
>

--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-05 22:51    [W:0.041 / U:0.864 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site