Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But the condition doesn't line up with the code:
>
> Exactly. The condition not lining up with the following code helps
> code helps separate the two.
Sorry about that: I realised you were agreeing with me about 5s after I sent
the message.
> Ho
David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Not lining up with the code following the if statement is also
>> a plus. Because it clearly delineates the conditions from the code.
>
> But the condition doesn't line up with the code:
Exactly. The c
Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not lining up with the code following the if statement is also
> a plus. Because it clearly delineates the conditions from the code.
But the condition doesn't line up with the code:
if (veryverylengthycondition1 &&
smallcond2 &&
David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Anthony Kazos Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> if (veryverylengthycondition1
>> && smallcond2
>> && (conditionnumber3a
>> || condition3b)) {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> Clear, crisp, an
On 5/1/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 08:05 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> I prefer this format also, but I'm not sure that we can get it
> into CodingStyle. CodingStyle is about (either) concensus or
> dictum, but I don't see us close to concensus...
Yes, s
On 5/1/07, John Anthony Kazos Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's horrid. I'd much rather see
>
> if (veryverylengthycondition1 &&
> smallcond2 &&
> (conditionnumber3a || condition3b)) {
> ...
> }
if (veryverylengthycondition1
From: On Behalf Of Satyam Sharma
> readable and obvious at first glance itself. For example, consider:
^^^
>
> if (veryverylengthycondition1 &&
> smallcond2 &&
> (conditionnumber3a ||
> condition3b)) {
>
John Anthony Kazos Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if (veryverylengthycondition1
> && smallcond2
> && (conditionnumber3a
> || condition3b)) {
> ...
> }
>
> Clear, crisp, and 80-wide. I also like how the logical operator
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 17:07 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> For clarity, if it fits, I prefer that one, too.
I don't think that was under question, was it?
My point was that I prefer it even when it _doesn't_ fit.
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ker
On Tue, 01 May 2007 15:16:13 +0100 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 11:00 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >
> > if (veryverylengthycondition1 &&
> > smallcond2 &&
> > (conditionnumber3a ||
> > condition3b)) {
> > ...
>
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 08:05 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> I prefer this format also, but I'm not sure that we can get it
> into CodingStyle. CodingStyle is about (either) concensus or
> dictum, but I don't see us close to concensus...
CodingStyle is mostly about consensus. We don't have a consens
On Tue, 1 May 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 11:00 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >
> > if (veryverylengthycondition1 &&
> > smallcond2 &&
> > (conditionnumber3a ||
> > condition3b)) {
> > ...
> > }
>
>
> > if (veryverylengthycondition1 &&
> > smallcond2 &&
> > (conditionnumber3a ||
> > condition3b)) {
> > ...
> > }
>
> It's horrid. I'd much rather see
>
> if (veryverylengthycondition1 &&
> smallcond2 &&
>
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 11:00 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> if (veryverylengthycondition1 &&
> smallcond2 &&
> (conditionnumber3a ||
> condition3b)) {
> ...
> }
It's horrid. I'd much rather see
if (veryverylengthyc
On 5/1/07, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Actually, the latter style (one condition per line and the && or ||
> operators appearing _before_ the conditions in subsequent lines)
> is quite popular for multi-line compound conditions (well, I
On Tue, 1 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Actually, the latter style (one condition per line and the && or ||
> operators appearing _before_ the conditions in subsequent lines)
> is quite popular for multi-line compound conditions (well, I've seen this
> in kernel/workqueue.c, kernel/stop_machine.
Satyam Sharma wrote:
[...]
> The rationale is to make the operator prominent and thus make
> the structure of a complex multi-line compound conditional expression more
> readable and obvious at first glance itself. For example, consider:
>
> if (veryverylengthycondition1 &&
> smallcond
> I'm a bit lost here. Are we referring to
>
> if (expr) {
> ...
> } else {
> ...
> }
>
> versus
>
> if (expr) {
> ...
> }
> else {
> ...
> }
This one is already covered by Documentation/CodingStyle
Hi,
On 4/30/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:11:21 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've separated this out under a new subject because some style issues
> that so far aren't documented explicitly are in doubt here, and Roland
> wants and A
On Monday 30 April 2007 13:09:17 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:11:21 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I've separated this out under a new subject because some style issues
> > that so far aren't documented explicitly are in doubt here, and Roland
> > wants and
On Apr 30 2007 10:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>This is
>
> if (expr1 &&
> expr2)
>
>versus
>
> if (expr1
> && expr2)
>
>the former is more common and is, IMO, more readable.
>
>The latter can be handy sometimes to prevent an 80-col overflow in the
>first line
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:11:21 +0100 Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've separated this out under a new subject because some style issues
> that so far aren't documented explicitly are in doubt here, and Roland
> wants and Answer from Andrew.
>
> We also should put clauses on this i
22 matches
Mail list logo
