Hi,
> As you say, technically only the first one is correct. So for example
>
> if (y < 12) y += 93;
> if (y < 12) SETERRQ(); note that if (y < 12) {SETERRQ();} is
> wrong since the {} are not needed.
>
> Things like
>
> if (y < 12) ierr = Something(); CHKERRQ(ierr);
>
> are just wrong source code (there should not be many of these, I fixed all
> the ones I found.
Fortunately I haven't come across any of these misuses (yet)...
>
> Things like
>
> if (y < 12) {ierr = Something(); CHKERRQ(ierr);}
>
> don't match the standard but ?. am I being too picky? I believe the PETSc
> make uncrustify rule would move that to separate lines.
I expect that it's a lot easier to define a rule where '{' opens a new
block on the next line rather than having a 'sometimes it's a single
line'-type of exception.
> Karl,
>
> Since you are exploring this why not run the make uncrustify rule after
> your cleanups and see what it formats differently in all the source code. It
> would be good to converge to an "automatic" format quickly so people can go
> back to using their own styles when typing in code if they like.
Yes, I considered uncrustify as the third stage in my initial email.
I'll try to achieve consistency asap and then fire a suitably configured
uncrustify on it.
Best regards,
Karli
