>Theo de Raadt wrote: >> I don't know if I am alone in this -- I am getting a bit tired of >> changes which are can be summarized as: "fighting someone else's >> style". >> >> I do not really see the value in changes of this sort. > >Agreed. I ordered the includes, but the void casts should just stay. > >I'd argue that some style changes make static analysis a little easier >or greatly improve readability. It's a fine line.
Well that's tough. The source files are not machine generated. People wrote them. Some of them had inconsistent style. Others followed stronger patterns, but patterns changed over time. There is little point in churning this code year by new into a new pattern which brings no benefits, and it is just pointless churn. Why not spit in the face of the original author at the same time? If static analysis tools cannot deal with this, too bad. In this program, really?? Get serious.
