Re: condingstyle, was Re: utrace comments

[Satyam Sharma]

On 5/1/07, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 08:05 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > I prefer this format also, but I'm not sure that we can get it
> > into CodingStyle.  CodingStyle is about (either) concensus or
> > dictum, but I don't see us close to concensus...

Yes, some of these styles are too personal and subjective to even try
and standardize. And then often even the same person doesn't follow a
single convention across his own code. More likely you'd succeed
standardizing *religion* than this ...

> CodingStyle is mostly about consensus. We don't have a consensus, which
> is why this particular stuff isn't specified in CodingStyle. :)

Actually, I'm not sure if we really gain much by finding consensus for
this particular stuff. Most compound conditions only contain upto 3-4
operators/expressions, so most of the styles discussed here would be
almost equally readable. And any code that goes beyond 3-4
operators/expressions is probably ugly in many other ways and needs to
fix its logic.
-
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/