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
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 into CodingStyle.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:02:13PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> >
23 matches
Mail list logo
