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

[William Allen Simpson]

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/