On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Yury V. Zaytsev <y...@shurup.com> wrote:
> a bit nicer and easier to read (and even better if you have huge > if-clause like !(foo && (bar <= 1) || ((a << 3) && (b & 0xff))) as > opposed to !(foo&&(bar<=1)||((a<<3)&&(b&0xff))) ), although I probably > have no right to vote as I didn't contribute a single patch :-( I agree. Though this is not something you can give exact rules for. It should be decided on a case by case basis depending on the elements. But what I originally meant is that we should use func(par1, par2, par3); rather than func ( par1 , par2 , par 3 ) ; or func(par1,par2,par3); _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~cuneiform Post to : cuneiform@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~cuneiform More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
