Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:08:26 -0500 | From | William Allen Simpson <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |