Where you have suggested changing
for (side_effects);
with
for (side_effects) { /* empty */ }
I would prefer this:
for (side_effects) ;
I think it will survive re-indentation better, and is a little more human-readable because it takes up an extra line.
My objection to this change is only that there is little general agreement on this sort of thing, so there is no hope of maintaining this style throughout the code base. As such, this type of patch just churns the code base.
Before doing this level of patch, I would suggest writing a coging standards document for the code base. Once you get agreement on the coding standards, then you have a basis for making these cosmetic cleanups.
The coding standards issues has been raised before[1], but I don't think there was any resolution or output document.
Ted anderson
[1] https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-devel/2003-January/003812.html
_______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
