On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 17:29:08 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <s...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> I would prefer if you revert this line or if we want to put emphasis on
>>> readability moving '{' to new line also seems fine.
>>
>> Done.
>
> I do not suggest that the change should be moved forth and back, but I think
> that the second conditions should always be shifted, and if this causes 80
> chars overflow then some other line split/rename/etc should be done to
> prevent that.
>
> Recent example of such style...:
> if ((getColorSpaceType (p) == ColorSpace.TYPE_RGB) &&
> (getData (p, icSigMediaWhitePointTag) != null) &&
> (getData (p, icSigRedColorantTag) != null) &&
> (getData (p, icSigGreenColorantTag) != null) &&
> (getData (p, icSigBlueColorantTag) != null) &&
> (getData (p, icSigRedTRCTag) != null) &&
> (getData (p, icSigGreenTRCTag) != null) &&
> (getData (p, icSigBlueTRCTag) != null)) {
> thisProfile = new ICC_ProfileRGB (p);
>
> Is that really looks fine?
This looks even worse than the case in this PR which has only two conditions.
If it'd been the new code, I wouldn't have agreed to revert indentation.
Let's wait for another opinion…
To make it clear, you're for keeping the indentation as it was in the original
PR to visually separate condition from the statement in the if block. Do I get
it right, @mrserb?
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3151
