In article <6734.1617154...@splode.eterna.com.au>,
matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote:
>Christos Zoulas writes:
>> In article <20900.1616977...@splode.eterna.com.au>,
>> matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote:
>> >> Log Message:
>> >> Clarify and explain the rationale for parentheses in sizeof and return as
>> >> discussed.
>> >
>> >+ * a function call. We always parenthesize the sizeof expression for
>> >+ * consistency.
>> >
>> >i object. this discussion was not finished.
>>
>> Ok, please provide an alternative proposal.
>
>i already did in the other thread -- apply the existing
>() rule. aka, avoid it unless it helps comprehension,
>which means simple sizeof can avoid it, but anything
>slightly complex should not. this means that all the
>fun cases will use () and the specific case i won't use
>it for is left alone (snprintf(buf, sizeof buf, ...)).
There are 3 x 'sizeof(' in the tree compared to 'sizeof ' in '*.c' and
I am counting 'sizeof (' as 'sizeof ':
191337 'sizeof('
63508 'sizeof '
I think that it is better to bless the prevailing majority as the rule,
but we should let others express their opinions first.
Best,
christos
