lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch.pl: Add warning about leading contination tests
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Where does this preference come from?
>
David Miller -- in response to a patch of mine that used:
- trailing && on existing lines that already had trailing &&, and
- leading && on existing lines that already had leading &&, and
- leading && on new code.

He decided he wants "consistency", existing code be damned.


> In
>
> excessivelylongcondition
> && anotherreallylongcondition
> && yetanotherunbelievablylongcondition
> && yetanotherwellyougettheidea
>
> I want to be able to keep the &&'s all justified.
>
Agree with you and Jean Delvare and thousands of other developers.


> Or look for well-typeset math or CS texts and try to find any that leave
> operators dangling on the right.
>
Agreed.


> I don't really care much about this particular point, but: the
> checkpatch output is already getting too verbose to be useful, without
> adding advice that's actually the opposite of what I'd normally want to
> do....
>
Yes, you are agreeing with a point Jean raised here, too.

Count me as opposed to this patch.

When I first looked at CodingStyle back in August, one thing that appealed
to me was the laid-back simpler style -- very few, very clear rules.

I'd prefer an addition to CodingStyle clarifying that we should not argue
about this minutiae.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-08 01:11    [W:0.057 / U:10.668 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site