On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:17:29 +0200 Benny Halevy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan. 03, 2008, 14:30 +0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > Agreed, CodingStyle is not about mindless consistency such as "for > > (" is the right thing, so "list_for_each (" is consistent with it, > > it is about codifying practice contributors got used to over the > > years. > > > > Why mindless? > Coding style is also about giving the coding language logic a > graphical representation. Following a convention that flow control > keywords such as "if", "for", or "while" are distinguished from > function calls by use of a space after the keyword really helps the > code readability regardless of how people used to code it in the > past... The for_each_* macros are clearly not function calls but > rather translate to for () flow control constructs hence they should > follow the same convention. FWIW, I think that changing the existing > convention is worth it in this case. Definite agreement here, since _for_each is used for flow control, that space should be there. And some people seem to take checkpatch.pl as the gospel, and won't apply code with checkpatch warnings. /Christer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/