Hi Dominique, I'm glad to have elicited some discussion :-) The syntax depends not only on associativity, but on precedence as well. The only place where precedence could be misleading are bitwise operations [1] (for backwards compatibility :-) So, my rule was simple: an "if ((..." with multiple leading parens is only necessary where the logical condition is indeed complex.
Gintas [1] http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=1159769 2017-12-08 9:53 GMT+01:00 Dominique Devienne <ddevie...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:53 AM, <gin...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Repository: ant-ivy > > Updated Branches: > > refs/heads/master 1b84f2ee7 -> 12aeeec70 > > > > tidy up the code > > - if ((currentTask.getTaskName() != null) > > + if (currentTask.getTaskName() != null > > && currentTask.getTaskName().equals(((Task) > > task).getTaskName())) { > > // The current AntMessageLogger already logs with the > same > > // prefix as the given task. So we shouldn't do > > anything... > > ... > > > > > > - if ((otherRef != null) && OVERRIDE_NOT_ALLOWED.equals( > override)) > > { > > + if (otherRef != null && OVERRIDE_NOT_ALLOWED.equals(override)) > { > > > > Hi Gintas, > > Why? I myself prefer having the parens you removed. > Is this some kind of automated code formatter? Or personnal preference? > I've never been one to rely on implicit associativity rule, and like > explicit parens in those cases. > > It's not a -1, but maybe we could have a short conversation here on whether > this is desirable or not, > or even if people just don't care. > > Thanks, --DD >
