On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Matthew Dillon <dil...@apollo.backplane.com> wrote:
> >:> NEW
> >:>
> >:> #define btokup(addr) (&kmemusage[((caddr_t)(addr) - kmembase) >>
> >PAGE_SHIFT])
> >:
> >:The added parentheses don't make any difference, semantically. This
> >:change probably wouldn't meet the criteria spelled out in style(9):
> >
> > Then style(9) needs to be updated, because we have to add parenthesis
> > to be able to not get warnings with -Wall.
>
> I'll support that. The example given in style(9):
>
> a = b->c[0] + ~d == (e || f) || g && h ? i : j >> 1;
>
> should rate as an entry in the Obfuscated C competition rather than
> an example of maintainable code.
>
> style(9) should emphasize legibility and maintainability, rather than
> minimizing the number of extraneous (from the compiler's perspective)
> parenthesis. The code you're writing has to be maintained for many years
> - and the maintainers will not always have your in-depth expertise.
> The code also forms a `reference implementation' for someone who wants
> to do something similar.
Here's another vote from someone who uses liberal parentheses! I think of it
like this: it may be correct, but if I can't understand it after I've written
it, what good is the code? Saving a few bytes isn't worth obfuscating code.
Style(9) should /dons flame-retardant suit/ encourage usage of extra parens
that make code more readable to humans.
>
> Peter
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
Brian Feldman _ __ ___ ___ ___
gr...@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
http://www.freebsd.org/ _ __ ___ ____ | _ \__ \ |) |
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! _ __ ___ ____ _____ |___/___/___/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
