On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > On 08/02/2010 11:06 AM, malc wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 08/02/2010 10:41 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But something like braces around an if doesn't seem like it creates a >>>>> big problem. Most C programmers are used to seeing braces in some >>>>> statements and not other. Therefore, it's hard to argue that the code >>>>> gets really unreadable if this isn't strictly enforced. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I won't argue that missing braces impact readability of the code, they >>>> probably don't. However, as was pointed out in earlier discussion there >>>> still remain two important points: >>>> >>>> 1. While it doesn't make a difference for the code itself, readability >>>> of patches suffers when braces have to be added/removed when a second >>>> line is inserted or disappears. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I understand the argument but it's not something that I strongly agree >>> with. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 2. I've messed up more than once with adding some debug code (even worse >>>> when it happens with real code): >>>> >>>> if (foo) >>>> fprintf(stderr, "debug msg\n"); >>>> bar(); /* oops, not conditional any more */ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> This is hard to do with editors that auto indent unless you're copying >>> and >>> pasting debugging. And yeah, I've made that mistake too doing the later >>> :-) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> This is why I tend to disagree with removing the rule, and suggest to >>>> rather implement some automatic checks like Aurelien suggested (if we >>>> need to change anything at all). I usually don't ask for a respin just >>>> for braces if the patch is good otherwise, but if you think we should >>>> just reject such patches without exceptions, I can change that. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, I try to remember to enforce it but often forget or just don't >>> notice. >>> My eyes don't tend to catch missing braces like they would catch bad type >>> naming because the former is really not uncommon. >>> >>> I'm happy with the status quo but I won't object to a git commit hook >>> that >>> enforces style. >>> >> >> Seriously? You are happy with the situation where some people get their >> patches rejected because they disagree/forogot/don't_care about single >> statement braces while the patches of others make it through? >> > > Yeah, I'm neglecting the fact that we're not consistent as maintainers and > I'm all for dropping it from CODING_STYLE.
I'd rather expand the document. For example, I like the approach libvirt takes: http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=blob_plain;f=HACKING;hb=HEAD Not specifically to braces, but they describe types and memory allocation etc. which is FAQ stuff for us too.
