Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Julian Elischer writes: > > Now if I'm working on some piece of code and feel that it could do with > some parens then surely KNF should be flexible enough to allow them.. > > I don't know how many bugs have ben revealed by adding parens and braces.. > I know that one of the first things I do

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Ladavac Marino once stated: => =Whilst the official codebase may be under the control of a select => =group of committers, the code should be capable of being understood => by => =anyone who is reasonably proficient with C. => => Depends on your definition of "reasonably", Mr. Special Counselor..

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Peter Jeremy wrote: >Someone wrote: >> >> "You are not supposed to understand this." > >I'd suggest that there's a vast difference in the intended audience >of the code containing the above comment and FreeBSD. Not to mention >a 20+ year gap in time. > >Whilst the official codebase may be under t

RE: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> -Original Message- > From: Mikhail Teterin [SMTP:m...@misha.cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 9:41 PM > To: curr...@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) > > =Whilst the official codebase may be under the control of

Obutuse code (was: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd))

On Tuesday, 2 February 1999 at 7:11:06 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > BTW, anyone looking further afield from the above comment might notice > code like: > > register *foo; > > foo = u.u_area; > foo->p_xyzzy =+ n; > > There aren't may C compilers left that can handle this sort of code..

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

=Whilst the official codebase may be under the control of a select =group of committers, the code should be capable of being understood by =anyone who is reasonably proficient with C. Depends on your definition of "reasonably", Mr. Special Counselor... That's what is being tirelessly debated for

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Someone wrote: > "You are not supposed to understand this." I'd suggest that there's a vast difference in the intended audience of the code containing the above comment and FreeBSD. Not to mention a 20+ year gap in time. Whilst the official codebase may be under the control of a select group of

RE: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> -Original Message- > From: John Saunders [SMTP:john.saund...@nlc.net.au] > Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 10:53 AM > To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG > Cc: Dan Swartzendruber > Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) > > In nlc.lists.freebsd-curr

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

In nlc.lists.freebsd-current you wrote: > At 12:09 PM 2/1/99 +1100, Gregory Bond wrote: >>> "You are not supposed to understand this." "You are not expected to understand this." >>It was (IIRC) the process switching magic at the heart of fork() in V7 (and >>earlier, I assume). > If I remember ri

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Jan 29, 8:34am, Brian Somers wrote: } Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) } } My argument is that this sort of thing gets out of hand. I've seen } things such as } } if (((a == b) || (c == d))) } } where a, b, c & d are just simple variables - there are so many }

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Jan 29, 9:13am, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: } Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) } } On the other hand style(9) should still firmly outlaw stuff like: } } /* wait 10 ms */ } if (((error = tsleep((caddr_t)dev, PPBPRI | PCATCH, } "ppbpoll&quo

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Jan 29, 12:05pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote: } Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) } The reason I'm interested in this (now tiresome) thread is that I'd much } rather have to read } } /* }* Bail out if the time left to next transaction is less than }* th

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> > > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:55:21 EST, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > > Everybody's goal is to keep/make code readable (accusations of "trying > > to obfuscate" are silly). You, people, are just not agreeing what > > "readable" means. Hoping to aid in the ending of this thread(s), > > Thank you ve

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

At 12:09 PM 2/1/99 +1100, Gregory Bond wrote: >> I seem to remember there once was a comment in a well-known body of code, which >> went something like: >> "You are not supposed to understand this." > >It was (IIRC) the process switching magic at the heart of fork() in V7 (and >earlier, I assume).

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> I seem to remember there once was a comment in a well-known body of code, > which > went something like: > "You are not supposed to understand this." It was (IIRC) the process switching magic at the heart of fork() in V7 (and earlier, I assume). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Doug Rabson wrote: >On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: >> >> The reason I'm interested in this (now tiresome) thread is that I'd much >> rather have to read >> >> /* >> * Bail out if the time left to next transaction is less than >> * the duration of the previous transact

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 11:02:48 -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > >> If I were working on this code written by someone else it'd leave my > >> editor looking like the top example, that's for sure. I think that > >> "How easy is it to edit a piece of code

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 04:26:53PM +1100, John Birrell wrote: > I can image a new subscriber to this list reading a few of these messages > and thinking: "why would I want to use an OS developed by these people?". > > We spend so much of our time looking up our own collective asses searching >

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

In message <19990129204521.a73...@znh.org> Zach Heilig writes: : On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 11:02:48AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: : > Yes. I agree with that. : > if (a | b & c % d ^ e) : > should have been written as: : > if (((a | (b & (c % d))) ^ e) != 0) : : I don't know why I'm getting

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 11:02:48AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > Yes. I agree with that. > if (a | b & c % d ^ e) > should have been written as: > if (((a | (b & (c % d))) ^ e) != 0) I don't know why I'm getting into this, but to prove the point that this expression takes careful thou

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

< said: > Question: how many people still limit their editor windows to 80 > characters? Probably almost anyone who uses the default settings. Many people like to be able to see more than one thing on the desktop at a time. Even with a 1280x1024 display on a good 19-inch monitor, I still can't

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> Question: how many people still limit their editor windows to 80 > characters? I do :-/ So that I don't write code > 80 columns. > Greg -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

:> Question: how many people still limit their editor windows to 80 :> characters? : :Almost everyone in my group, since alot of development is done on :laptops with small screens, or done remotely. : :Nate I do, because if use anything larger some lines will inevitably go over and I'll ge

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > of intelligibility. Consider one possible expansion > > if (((allocationfail | (IGNOREFAILUREMASK & (incount % BLKSIZE))) ^ failures) != 0) or if (((allocationfail | (IGNOREFAILUREMASK & (incount % B

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> Question: how many people still limit their editor windows to 80 > characters? Almost everyone in my group, since alot of development is done on laptops with small screens, or done remotely. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the bod

Re: indent (was: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd))

> On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 9:13:39 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > It would also be nice if somebody whould coerse ident to DTRT. > > I've already mentioned that I have a version of indent with DABT. > Shall I polish it up a bit? You've got my vote. > Greg > -- > See complete headers f

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 11:02:48 -0700, Warner Losh wrote: >> If I were working on this code written by someone else it'd leave my >> editor looking like the top example, that's for sure. I think that >> "How easy is it to edit a piece of code and still have it do what you >> expect" is an i

indent (was: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd))

On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 9:13:39 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > It would also be nice if somebody whould coerse ident to DTRT. I've already mentioned that I have a version of indent with DABT. Shall I polish it up a bit? Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbe

RE: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> -Original Message- > From: Julian Elischer [mailto:jul...@whistle.com] > Sent: 29 January 1999 17:48 > To: Warner Losh > Cc: Andrew Kenneth Milton; curr...@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) > > > > > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, W

RE: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> -Original Message- > From: Doug Rabson [mailto:d...@nlsystems.com] > Sent: 29 January 1999 10:49 > To: Sheldon Hearn > Cc: Greg Lehey; curr...@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) > > > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: &g

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

: If I were working on this code written by someone else it'd leave my : editor looking like the top example, that's for sure. I think that : "How easy is it to edit a piece of code and still have it do what you : expect" is an important consideration, because people DO edit things. Agreed. : >

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Warner Losh wrote: > > if ((a < 0) && (b < 0)) > Personally while I KNOW (after wasting a second thinking about it) that the example below is the same as that above, I ALWAYS code as above. It takes me about 1/5th the time to know what it means. > if (a < 0 &&

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > Giving folks the go-ahead to use parens as a form of documentation is > misguided and will end in tears. MHO. > Giving people the ability to quickly prove that the code matches the comments when they're upto their behinds in alligators is not going

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > When it comes to code, do you not agree that the trained eye knows which > operators to seek to first in an expression? I can't think of an analogy > in the English language, since one doesn't "seek to" commas, one simply > reads from left to right.

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

In message <199901291530.iaa06...@mt.sri.com> Nate Williams writes: : Bruce should get 50X the vote since he's the only one willing to enforce : the rules. Without Bruce the code would become inconsistant. By : over-ruling we are essentially Essentially what? I appreciate the work that bruce ha

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

In message <199901291121.vaa01...@zeus.theinternet.com.au> Andrew Kenneth Milton writes: : The only arguments I've seen for less 'punctuation' are : : a) "I" don't need them : b) "I" don't like what it looks like with them : c) There might be bugs introduced due to parens. : : Well a and b are

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

I seem to remember there once was a comment in a well-known body of code, which went something like: "You are not supposed to understand this." Brian Feldman_ __ ___ ___ ___ gr...@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \ h

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Nate Williams wrote: > > > Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces > > > say "change style(9)". > > > > > > Well, here is my change.. > > > > You can count my vote. > > > > I would also add a paragraph like this: > > > > If possible code should

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> > Unless things have changed a lot, bde counts 50x most people. This > > isn't a democracy. > > It may not be a democracy, but it's also not a monarchy. :-) ... > Bruce only gets "50x the vote" on occasion by generally being the only > one to comment at all. Bruce should get 50X the vote sin

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> As for noise, there are situations where excess punctuation is just > noise, and there are situations that benefit from more than the bare > minumum of decorations. Anyone doing kernel programming ought to know > the difference. And that is where we disagree. Style is religion, and one man

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > I didn't have a problem reading the sentence, even though you left out > required commas. The only thing that caused a problem was your use of > split infinitive. ;-) Split infinitive is a urban legend. It has *never* been outlawed in the english language, except for some

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > As far as I see it, there are a lot of people who are saying > > "I want to use parens to improve readability" > > when what they really mean is > > "I want to use parens to obviate the need to learn operator precedence." > > I can't imagine how unnecessary parens are

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Brian Somers wrote: >[...] > But where do you draw the line in style(9) ? Dunno. Err on the side of redundancy, which cam be mechanically removed if you don't happen to like it. -- Bob Bishop +44 118 977 4017 r...@gid.co.uk fax +44 118 989 4254 To Unsubs

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> +[ Julian Elischer ]- > | yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9) > | so I'm going to do it later tonight.. > | (It doesn't make extra braces MANDATORY but it does ALLOW them.) > | > | julian > | (if this doesn't b

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 29-Jan-99 Sheldon Hearn wrote: > When it comes to code, do you not agree that the trained eye knows which > operators to seek to first in an expression? I can't think of an analogy > in the English language, since one doesn't "seek to" commas, one simply > re

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 12:05:04PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:01:23 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > > I can't imagine how unnecessary parens are going to improve > > > "readability" for anyone who knows his/her operator precedence. > > > > What about the others? >

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

+[ Doug Rabson ]- | On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: | > | > The reason I'm interested in this (now tiresome) thread is that I'd much | > rather have to read | > | > /* | > * Bail out if the time left to next transaction is less th

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:01:23 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > > > > I can't imagine how unnecessary parens are going to improve > > > "readability" for anyone who knows his/her operator precedence. > > > > What about the others? > > I'd like to know t

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:01:23 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > > I can't imagine how unnecessary parens are going to improve > > "readability" for anyone who knows his/her operator precedence. > > What about the others? I'd like to know that people who don't know operator precedence are leaving the k

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> so far you are the first and only objector.. > which makes you outnumbered by 10 to 1 on email counts.. > I agree completely, saving a few bytes in the source code is not worth the obfuscation that results, writing correct programs is hard enough as it is, without having to suffer from obfuscat

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> >> The parans have the same function as commas in most latin alphabet >> based languages: to convey structure. > >I think you've picked the wrong analogy. The rules of the language >dictate certain cases in which commas are required. Extraneous use of >commas decreases readability. Wrong, ther

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 10:27:00 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:55:21 EST, Mikhail Teterin wrote: >> Everybody's goal is to keep/make code readable (accusations of "trying >> to obfuscate" are silly). You, people, are just not agreeing what >> "readable" means. Hoping to

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:53:08 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > The parans have the same function as commas in most latin alphabet > based languages: to convey structure. I think you've picked the wrong analogy. The rules of the language dictate certain cases in which commas are required. Extr

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

In message <88592.917598...@axl.noc.iafrica.com>, Sheldon Hearn writes: > > >On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:55:21 EST, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > >> Everybody's goal is to keep/make code readable (accusations of "trying >> to obfuscate" are silly). You, people, are just not agreeing what >> "readable" means.

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> ... Unless we're talking about modifications to existing files where > either style(9) or other systematic styles apply, in which case we > should all try to adapt our changes to that style to avoid babelized > codelayout. Absolutely. I was talking only about my own code, and code which I modi

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

In message <7032.917598...@zippy.cdrom.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: >Many of us refuse to follow style(9), will NEVER follow style(9), >and to insist on it for others would be hypocritical at best. Bruce >is more of a microcosm and shouldn't be taken as indicative of general >trends. :) ...

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> not-so-loudly agree. Ask yourself: in the last 6 months, how many > things have been shot down and what has survived? From my point > of view, not much progress has been achieved. As far as I can see, > FreeBSD has reached critical mass and for each new developer coming > on board, one drops off

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:55:21 EST, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > Everybody's goal is to keep/make code readable (accusations of "trying > to obfuscate" are silly). You, people, are just not agreeing what > "readable" means. Hoping to aid in the ending of this thread(s), Thank you very much. This is _

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> KNF is propogating what I consider to be bad practice, and that annoys me. > I'm happy to say that often they should be dropped, but to FORCE the > dropping of braces etc. with no regard to readbility is too much. I wasn't aware that KNF or style(9) actually "forced" anything so much as "suggest

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> We spend so much of our time looking up our own collective asses searching > for the meaning of life that it is no wonder FreeBSD doesn't feel like it > has a clear direction for the future. All people seem to want to do is > stomp on others who try to contribute something. I think the amount of

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

In message <6892.917596...@zippy.cdrom.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes: >> style(9) is not KNF, and never was intended to be. It's a FreeBSD style >> guide that bears similarity to KNF because that's what it used as a >> starting point. > >I think we can safely presume that Bruce has been overrul

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> Unless things have changed a lot, bde counts 50x most people. This > isn't a democracy. It may not be a democracy, but it's also not a monarchy. :-) If recent core events have taught us anything at all, it's that nobody in core escapes being accountable to the developers at large and if the co

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> style(9) is not KNF, and never was intended to be. It's a FreeBSD style > guide that bears similarity to KNF because that's what it used as a > starting point. I think we can safely presume that Bruce has been overruled on this one. If the collective definition is different than his, and it se

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Russell L. Carter wrote: > Come on John, this has *meaning*. For or against -Wall > *stands* for something! We have constitutional procedures > to solve this thing! The "constitutional procedures" just stomp on things because the few who complain the loudest drown out those who silently or not

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Matthew Dillon once stated: =The changes seem pretty reasonable, to me. I don't see why you are =so rabid about not allowing a few extra braces for clarity. It =would make the code more readable. Somehow, this just reminded me of the US Communication Decency Act, where indecency was d

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Thursday, 28 January 1999 at 21:43:41 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > >> On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 16:26:53 +1100, John Birrell wrote: >> >> I'm sure they might. But they'd be wrong. I do believe that >> maintaining a coherent style is a Good Th

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 16:26:53 +1100, John Birrell wrote: > > I'm sure they might. But they'd be wrong. I do believe that > maintaining a coherent style is a Good Thing. I just dislike the > particular style, but since it doesn't significantly

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 09:39:36PM -0700, Nate Williams wrote: > > Encouraging unreadable code is something I find highly questionable. > > I find the KNF style highly readable. As a matter of fact, I find the > extra parentheses *often* to be a bunch of noise. > > And, as Bruce implied, if you

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

The changes seem pretty reasonable, to me. I don't see why you are so rabid about not allowing a few extra braces for clarity. It would make the code more readable. Besides, a great deal of the preexisting code already uses braces even in single statement if()'s... and a g

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

[...] %We spend so much of our time looking up our own collective asses searching %for the meaning of life that it is no wonder FreeBSD doesn't feel like it %has a clear direction for the future. All people seem to want to do is %stomp on others who try to contribute something. Come on John, thi

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 16:26:53 +1100, John Birrell wrote: > Greg Lehey wrote: >> I don't think they're a good idea. Sure, I don't like style(9), but >> if we're going to overhaul it, we should do it properly. Given the >> diversity of opinion expressed every time anybody has tried the >>

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Greg Lehey wrote: > I don't think they're a good idea. Sure, I don't like style(9), but > if we're going to overhaul it, we should do it properly. Given the > diversity of opinion expressed every time anybody has tried the > smallest change, I don't see that happening, so why don't we just > forg

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Thursday, 28 January 1999 at 19:41:29 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Bruce Evans wrote: >> style(9) is supposed to document KNF. It is not supposed to document >> best coding practices, julian's preferences or bde's preferences. > > KNF is not a static thing that cannot

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> The apparent infallability of code and historical documents anyone > tries to update suggests that the Pope was involved with CSRG. No, but in general the combined experience of the CSRG folks is greater than most of the programmers here. > Encouraging unreadable code is something I find highly

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

In message <19990128230223.a1...@netmonger.net> Christopher Masto writes: : Encouraging unreadable code is something I find highly questionable. Sadly, unreadable is in the eyes of the beholder. Code style is a highly religious and contentious issue... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to major

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> The resounding responce SO FAR (except for you) has been either > "I don't really care about those changes" or "YES please!" I've heard 3 'yes' votes, and I've abstained from commenting at this time because I got beat up last time I mentioned something. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

In message Julian Elischer writes: : so far you are the first and only objector.. : which makes you outnumbered by 10 to 1 on email counts.. Unless things have changed a lot, bde counts 50x most people. This isn't a democracy. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "uns

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 02:26:51PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > >My mail system appears to have accidentally deleted your excellent and > >well-considered reasons for not allowing style(9) to say "it's OK to > >use extra braces or parenthesis when it makes your code more > >comprehensible". > > Per

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Bruce Evans wrote: [..] > >Perhaps you could repeat it? > > style(9) is supposed to document KNF. It is not supposed to document > best coding practices, julian's preferences or bde's preferences. style(9) is not KNF, and never was intended to be. It's a FreeBSD style guide that bears similarit

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

+[ Julian Elischer ]- | | On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Bruce Evans wrote: | > style(9) is supposed to document KNF. It is not supposed to document | > best coding practices, julian's preferences or bde's preferences. | | KNF is not a static thing that cann

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Bruce Evans wrote: > style(9) is supposed to document KNF. It is not supposed to document > best coding practices, julian's preferences or bde's preferences. KNF is not a static thing that cannot be changed. KNF is in effect whatever is written in style(9). In case I hadn't

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

>> Of course I object. > >My mail system appears to have accidentally deleted your excellent and >well-considered reasons for not allowing style(9) to say "it's OK to >use extra braces or parenthesis when it makes your code more >comprehensible". Perhaps it is in some of your backups from 5 years

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, John Polstra wrote: > In article , > Julian Elischer wrote: > > so far you are the first and only objector.. > > which makes you outnumbered by 10 to 1 on email counts.. > > Uh, votes last longer than 8 hours around here. You should give > people 3 days minimum to respon

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

+[ Julian Elischer ]- | yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9) | so I'm going to do it later tonight.. | (It doesn't make extra braces MANDATORY but it does ALLOW them.) | | julian | (if this doesn't bring some NEYs

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

In article , Julian Elischer wrote: > so far you are the first and only objector.. > which makes you outnumbered by 10 to 1 on email counts.. Uh, votes last longer than 8 hours around here. You should give people 3 days minimum to respond. We don't all have pagers hooked up to our mail systems

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

so far you are the first and only objector.. which makes you outnumbered by 10 to 1 on email counts.. On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Bruce Evans wrote: > >yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9) > > Of course I object. > > >so I'm going to do it later tonight.. > > If

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 01:25:07PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: > >yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9) > > Of course I object. My mail system appears to have accidentally deleted your excellent and well-considered reasons for not allowing style(9) to say "it's O

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

>yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9) Of course I object. >so I'm going to do it later tonight.. If you commit it, then I will back it out. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the messag

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

:that day on, I never put assignments in conditionals with an explicit :boolean test, aka if ((a = b) != 0) { ... }. Oops, I meant 'without an explicit boolean test'. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscrib

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9) so I'm going to do it later tonight.. (It doesn't make extra braces MANDATORY but it does ALLOW them.) julian (if this doesn't bring some NEYs I'll be amazed..) On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Mike Smith wrote: > > Beyond that it

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> Beyond that it's pretty much just &/| and &&/|| precedences. I personally > *never* liked the fact that C gave & and | ( and && and || ) differentl > precedences. IMHO, the arithmatic-vs-shift parenthesization is something > I've *always* done myself, so I don't mind those warni

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

:Yes, that's true... but on balance I (personally) find it's worth :the tradeoff. : :On the other hand, I can't stand the GNU coding style.. : :-Archie : :___ :Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whi

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Nate Williams writes: > > I hope that wording is sufficiently unoffensive to the -Wall haters. > > '-Wall haters'. That almost sounds like 'Wall-flowers' or something. :) :-) > Agreed, but that's not the only reason I dislike '-Wall'. The other > reason is that some of the warnings enabled in

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

> > Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces > > say "change style(9)". > > > > Well, here is my change.. > > You can count my vote. > > I would also add a paragraph like this: > > If possible code should complile cleanly with gcc's -Wall flag. > Note however that

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Julian Elischer wrote: >Well, here is my change.. I think it's a good move and I'll support it (FWIW). >@@ -256,13 +256,23 @@ > .Ed > .Pp > Space after keywords (if, while, for, return, switch). No braces are >-used for control statements with zero or only a single statement. >+used for control

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Julian Elischer writes: > Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces > say "change style(9)". > > Well, here is my change.. You can count my vote. I would also add a paragraph like this: If possible code should complile cleanly with gcc's -Wall flag. Note however tha

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces > say "change style(9)". > Amazingly there hasn't been a SINGLE comment! (after a whole 8 hours!) julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe f

Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)

Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces say "change style(9)". Well, here is my change.. I think theere is enough support for this that this should be discussed seriously, and "It's not like in the good old days", or "I'm not used to extra parenthesis" are not going t