Hi, On 06-09-17 22:45, David Sommerseth wrote: > On 23/08/17 07:30, Antonio Quartulli wrote: >> -static void delete_route(struct route_ipv4 *r, const struct tuntap *tt, >> unsigned int flags, const struct route_gateway_info *rgi, const struct >> env_set *es); >> +static void delete_route(struct route_ipv4 *r, const struct tuntap *tt, >> + unsigned int flags, >> + const struct route_gateway_info *rgi, >> + const struct env_set *es); > > vs > >> static void >> -delete_route(struct route_ipv4 *r, >> - const struct tuntap *tt, >> - unsigned int flags, >> - const struct route_gateway_info *rgi, >> - const struct env_set *es) >> +delete_route(struct route_ipv4 *r, const struct tuntap *tt, unsigned int >> flags, >> + const struct route_gateway_info *rgi, const struct env_set *es) > > I think the change you do in the former one is also more readable than > squeezing everything into as few lines as possible, especially when > there's lots of arguments.
I disagree that stretching out function prototypes/declarations over multiple lines improves readability. Adding newlines wastes my vertical screen real estate, which results in more scrolling and reduced overview. Or: I fully agree with the proposed change by Antonio (modulo the tabs, of course). -Steffan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
