Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch.pl: Add warning about leading continationtests

From: William Allen Simpson
Date: Mon Dec 07 2009 - 19:08:41 EST


J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Where does this preference come from?

David Miller -- in response to a patch of mine that used:
- trailing && on existing lines that already had trailing &&, and
- leading && on existing lines that already had leading &&, and
- leading && on new code.

He decided he wants "consistency", existing code be damned.


In

excessivelylongcondition
&& anotherreallylongcondition
&& yetanotherunbelievablylongcondition
&& yetanotherwellyougettheidea

I want to be able to keep the &&'s all justified.

Agree with you and Jean Delvare and thousands of other developers.


Or look for well-typeset math or CS texts and try to find any that leave
operators dangling on the right.

Agreed.


I don't really care much about this particular point, but: the
checkpatch output is already getting too verbose to be useful, without
adding advice that's actually the opposite of what I'd normally want to
do....

Yes, you are agreeing with a point Jean raised here, too.

Count me as opposed to this patch.

When I first looked at CodingStyle back in August, one thing that appealed
to me was the laid-back simpler style -- very few, very clear rules.

I'd prefer an addition to CodingStyle clarifying that we should not argue
about this minutiae.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/