Hmmm... > > > ip_if.c:7281 I'd prefer to see to each side of a boolean && enclosed > > > with parens when it the test is compound (i.e. use " if ((x != NULL) > > > && ... " instead of " if (x != NULL &&" > > > > Actually, I'd prefer not, unless there are bitwise operators involved. > > A mess of parenthesis just ends up making the code look too much like > > lisp. > >Seconded. I'd hope most everyone working on the kernel would know the >precedence of (x != y && x != z). > >
Precedence aside, I find it much easier to read ((x != y) && (x != z)) than (x != y && x != z) as the inner ()'s automatically make it clear that the statements are being grouped together. It's a very useful visual cue. Sin(e I've n()t spent very much time with lisp ()r ()ther similar languages, I d()nt have any feelings ab()ut bra(kets making it l()()k like s()me ()ther language. Here's ()ne suggesti()n: st()p using ema(s. Have a nice day. Darren ))) _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
