On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:30:15 -0700 David Brownell wrote: > > > > Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK) > > > > > > But ... why? What value could needless parens provide? > > > > Who says that needless parens could provide value? > > Jean, which is why he submitted the patch. > You, implicitly, by acking a patch saying those parens are bad. > But not me ... I don't think this patch is merge-worthy.
Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, you did have me confused. Sure, if something is needless, it doesn't provide value. So we disagree that some parens are needless. OK. > > > "Yet Another Subtle And Hard To Fix Source Of Bloat" is > > > not a plus. > > > > ISTM that we agree. > > Evidently not, since removing it would promote such bloat. > Explicitly removing disapproval is a form of approval... > > > > > I'd kind of think a change like this should have some > > > positive motivation. > > > > "Me, I agree that numbers in parens don't usually make sense for > > kernel messages." > > > > It's too trivial to be included in CodingStyle. > > So the reason to remove that guideline, and thereby encourage > proliferation of needless parens, is ... that some OTHER way > to get rid of them is working? Andrew listed some cases where parens make sense. He didn't say (and I don't say) [oops, parens] that they always make sense, but the statement in CodingStyle is too strict. Sometimes they make sense. > I would agree that line could be improved to say that messages > should not be needlessly large. Excess parens are one example; > wordiness is another (including printing 8 bit fields as 0x%08x), > and I'm sure there are more. --- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/