Re: [Patch] tty: move a definition out of switch block

[Cong Wang]

Alan Cox wrote:
> > jumps to its first label at a first glance. I know in this case
> > the code is _not_ wrong, but again, it's not good for reading.
>
> So this is just your personal preference ? That seems like pointless
> churn, especially given that many other people consider putting the
> variables there is better than
>
> 	case foo:
> 	{
> 		Blah blah
> 	}
> 	}
> }
>
> in switches

Well, in C99 6.5.4, it has a very good example to explain this.
See this example:

switch (xxx) {
	int a = 1; //<-- not initialized
	int b; //<-- seems to be skipped, but not
	func(&a); //<-- skipped;
case 1:
	//...
	break;
case 2:
	return a; //<-- uninitialized value;
}


So why not just:

int a = 1, b;
switch (xxx) {
case 1:
	// blah blah
}

? A first galance will know everything, no need to guess if
'switch' skips it or not.

--
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/