Re: [PATCH/RFC] CodingStyle updates

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Randy Dunlap wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:07:27 -0500 (EST) Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > > David Weinehall wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 12:48:38AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > > +but no space after unary operators:
> > > > > +		sizeof  ++  --  &  *  +  -  ~  !  defined
> > > >
> > > > Uhm, that doesn't compute...  If you don't put a space after sizeof,
> > > > the program won't compile.
> > > >
> > > > int c;
> > > > printf("%d", sizeofc);
> > >
> > > Uh, we prefer not to see "sizeof c".  IOW, we prefer to have the
> > > parentheses use all the time.  Maybe I need to say that better?
> >
> > here's a *really* rough first pass, i'm sure the end result would need
> > some hand tweaking:
>
> You can certainly send such (generated) patches to Andrew or other
> subsystem maintainers if you'd like, but I'm more interested in not
> adding more crud to the tree in the future.
>
> IOW, sure, we prefer sizeof(foo) to sizeof foo, but the latter isn't
> killing us.  If someone is there making other changes, it would be
> OK to change that also.

the advantage to standardizing what's there is that it makes it easier
to make subsequent changes.  as a perfect example, because there are
several variations to the use of "sizeof", trying to catch every
combination that might be replaceable by the use of ARRAY_SIZE() is
just that much harder since you'd have to (as i had to) use regular
expressions to check for every variant -- parentheses or no
parentheses?  space after the word or not?  internal spaces within the
parentheses?

all that variation makes global changes for more useful stuff a real
pain.

rday

-
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/