In message: <49fadef3.5010...@gmx.de> Christoph Mallon <christoph.mal...@gmx.de> writes: : Marius Strobl schrieb: : > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 09:02:36AM +0200, Christoph Mallon wrote: : >> return with parentheses: : >> Removed, because it does not improve maintainability in any way. There : >> is no source for confusion here, so the rule even contradicts the rule, : >> which states not to use redundant parentheses. Maybe, decades ago it was : >> just a workaround for a broken compiler, which does not exist anymore. : > : > FYI, the idea behind this rule is said to be to able to use : > a macro return(), f.e. for debugging you then can do: : > #define return(x) do { \ : > printf("returning from %s with %d\n", __func__, (x)); \ : > return (x); \ : > } while (0) : > : > Given the this is a nifty feature and parentheses around the : > return value don't hurt maintainability in any way IMO this : > rule should stay. : : This is mentioned nowhere in style(9) (in general it is lacking reasons : why something is some way or the other).
It has been an example used for the past 15 years at least as to why to do this... I don't know how many people have actually used the ability to do this in code. : Also I consider this as gross abuse: Macro names shall be in all : uppercase, so it is clear that there is a macro at work. Therefore : "return" is not a candidate. So this would violate yet another rule in : style(9) (the original return already violates the no-redundant : parentheses rule). : Also I would not mention __func__: there were objections against using : it in the past (though I, logically, prefer its use). It is a debugging aid, but one of dubious value for a far more fundamental reason: return; will break any macro. Warner _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"