On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
>> + } else if (!strcmp(item.buf, "update")) {
>> + if (!value)
>> + ret = config_error_nonbool(var);
>> + else if (!me->overwrite &&
>> + submodule->update != SM_UPDATE_UNSPECIFIED)
>
> Funny indentation here (locally fixable).
I looked through the code base and reread our CodingGuidelines
to find out what is considered correct. (I assumed we had a gnu-ish
coding style w.r.t. breaking overly long lines in conditions, which is
having the next line be indented with 4 spaces.)
So I assume by funny you mean "the next line doesn't start below the
opening parenthesis"?
That would seem to be consistent as it fits both the 4 space indentation
which is always found below "if (", but we have more than 4 spaces in
other places such as overly long return statements, i.e. refs.c, l 610
(@origin/master)
return starts_with(refname, "refs/heads/") ||
starts_with(refname, "refs/remotes/") ||
starts_with(refname, "refs/notes/") ||
!strcmp(refname, "HEAD");
which also doesn't seem to align perfectly to me.
Looking for places, which have the pattern "else if (..." with line
break, I found several different styles.
builtin/mv.c (@origin/master) has two occurrences of
else if (...
<2 additional tabs> condition continues here
and another of
else if (...
<1 tab + 1 SP> condition nearly aligned to statement below
Looking at remote.c, I can find 1 tab, plus 3 spaces.
...
Giving up to come up with an idea for space based rule other than
"visually align it below the original statement".
Puzzled,
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
