[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Conrad Meyer <c...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Eric van Gyzen <e...@vangyzen.net>
> > wrote:
> > > On 01/17/2018 16:40, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > >> Yeah, style is sacred, but is there a single person on Earth who would
> > >> not agree that moving variables from smaller blocks to function block
> > >> reduces readability of the code?
> > >
> > > I agree that it reduces the readability. Not only that, it also
> > > encourages real bugs by allowing access to the variable when it does not
> > > make sense.
> >
> > I think the right way to propose this kind of policy change is to get
> > agreement on how style(9) should be modified ? not arbitrarily go
> > against style(9) in some files. The proposed change may be somewhat
> > contentious and it might be a good exercise to go through the FreeBSD
> > Community Process.
> >
> > I might separate these two concerns:
> >
> > 1. Allowing local / block scoped variables
> > 2. Allowing C99 for loop initial declarations
> >
> > But I could see the argument that (2) is just a boring subset of (1).
> >
>
> Tell me again where #1/#2 are disallowed? I can't seem to find that in
> style(9), except by a weak example of there being no examples of #1 or #2.
I think everyone glossed over:
Parts of a for loop may be left empty. Do not put declarations inside
blocks unless the routine is unusually complicated.
Perhaps that second sentence should be extracted into a paragraph of its own?
This does sound very much like what you said that you do in another reply
in this thread.
> Warner
--
Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
