-Original Message-
From: Mikhail Teterin [SMTP:m...@misha.cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 9:41 PM
To: curr...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)
=Whilst the official codebase may be under the control of a select
=group of committers
Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@auss2.alcatel.com.au wrote:
Someone wrote:
You are not supposed to understand this.
I'd suggest that there's a vast difference in the intended audience
of the code containing the above comment and FreeBSD. Not to mention
a 20+ year gap in time.
Whilst the official
Ladavac Marino once stated:
= =Whilst the official codebase may be under the control of a select
= =group of committers, the code should be capable of being understood
= by
= =anyone who is reasonably proficient with C.
=
= Depends on your definition of reasonably, Mr. Special Counselor...
=
Julian Elischer jul...@whistle.com writes:
Now if I'm working on some piece of code and feel that it could do with
some parens then surely KNF should be flexible enough to allow them..
I don't know how many bugs have ben revealed by adding parens and braces..
I know that one of the first
In nlc.lists.freebsd-current you wrote:
At 12:09 PM 2/1/99 +1100, Gregory Bond wrote:
You are not supposed to understand this.
You are not expected to understand this.
It was (IIRC) the process switching magic at the heart of fork() in V7 (and
earlier, I assume).
If I remember right, it
-Original Message-
From: John Saunders [SMTP:john.saund...@nlc.net.au]
Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 10:53 AM
To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: Dan Swartzendruber
Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)
In nlc.lists.freebsd-current you wrote:
At 12:09 PM 2/1
Someone wrote:
You are not supposed to understand this.
I'd suggest that there's a vast difference in the intended audience
of the code containing the above comment and FreeBSD. Not to mention
a 20+ year gap in time.
Whilst the official codebase may be under the control of a select
group of
=Whilst the official codebase may be under the control of a select
=group of committers, the code should be capable of being understood by
=anyone who is reasonably proficient with C.
Depends on your definition of reasonably, Mr. Special Counselor...
That's what is being tirelessly debated for
On Tuesday, 2 February 1999 at 7:11:06 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
BTW, anyone looking further afield from the above comment might notice
code like:
register *foo;
foo = u.u_area;
foo-p_xyzzy =+ n;
There aren't may C compilers left that can handle this sort of code...
Ah, but
Doug Rabson d...@nlsystems.com wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The reason I'm interested in this (now tiresome) thread is that I'd much
rather have to read
/*
* Bail out if the time left to next transaction is less than
* the duration of the previous
I seem to remember there once was a comment in a well-known body of code,
which
went something like:
You are not supposed to understand this.
It was (IIRC) the process switching magic at the heart of fork() in V7 (and
earlier, I assume).
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
At 12:09 PM 2/1/99 +1100, Gregory Bond wrote:
I seem to remember there once was a comment in a well-known body of
code, which
went something like:
You are not supposed to understand this.
It was (IIRC) the process switching magic at the heart of fork() in V7 (and
earlier, I assume).
If I
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:55:21 EST, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Everybody's goal is to keep/make code readable (accusations of trying
to obfuscate are silly). You, people, are just not agreeing what
readable means. Hoping to aid in the ending of this thread(s),
Thank you very much. This
On Jan 29, 12:05pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)
} The reason I'm interested in this (now tiresome) thread is that I'd much
} rather have to read
}
} /*
}* Bail out if the time left to next transaction is less than
}* the duration
On Jan 29, 9:13am, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
} Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)
}
} On the other hand style(9) should still firmly outlaw stuff like:
}
} /* wait 10 ms */
} if (((error = tsleep((caddr_t)dev, PPBPRI | PCATCH,
} ppbpoll, hz/100)) != EWOULDBLOCK
On Jan 29, 8:34am, Brian Somers wrote:
} Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)
}
} My argument is that this sort of thing gets out of hand. I've seen
} things such as
}
} if (((a == b) || (c == d)))
}
} where a, b, c d are just simple variables - there are so many
} redundant
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 04:26:53PM +1100, John Birrell j...@cimlogic.com.au
wrote:
I can image a new subscriber to this list reading a few of these messages
and thinking: why would I want to use an OS developed by these people?.
We spend so much of our time looking up our own collective
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 11:02:48 -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
If I were working on this code written by someone else it'd leave my
editor looking like the top example, that's for sure. I think that
How easy is it to edit a piece of code and still
Unless things have changed a lot, bde counts 50x most people. This
isn't a democracy.
It may not be a democracy, but it's also not a monarchy. :-)
If recent core events have taught us anything at all, it's that nobody
in core escapes being accountable to the developers at large and if
the
In message 6892.917596...@zippy.cdrom.com, Jordan K. Hubbard writes:
style(9) is not KNF, and never was intended to be. It's a FreeBSD style
guide that bears similarity to KNF because that's what it used as a
starting point.
I think we can safely presume that Bruce has been overruled on this
We spend so much of our time looking up our own collective asses searching
for the meaning of life that it is no wonder FreeBSD doesn't feel like it
has a clear direction for the future. All people seem to want to do is
stomp on others who try to contribute something.
I think the amount of
KNF is propogating what I consider to be bad practice, and that annoys me.
I'm happy to say that often they should be dropped, but to FORCE the
dropping of braces etc. with no regard to readbility is too much.
I wasn't aware that KNF or style(9) actually forced anything so much
as suggested it
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:55:21 EST, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Everybody's goal is to keep/make code readable (accusations of trying
to obfuscate are silly). You, people, are just not agreeing what
readable means. Hoping to aid in the ending of this thread(s),
Thank you very much. This is
not-so-loudly agree. Ask yourself: in the last 6 months, how many
things have been shot down and what has survived? From my point
of view, not much progress has been achieved. As far as I can see,
FreeBSD has reached critical mass and for each new developer coming
on board, one drops off or
In message 7032.917598...@zippy.cdrom.com, Jordan K. Hubbard writes:
Many of us refuse to follow style(9), will NEVER follow style(9),
and to insist on it for others would be hypocritical at best. Bruce
is more of a microcosm and shouldn't be taken as indicative of general
trends. :)
... Unless
In message 88592.917598...@axl.noc.iafrica.com, Sheldon Hearn writes:
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:55:21 EST, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Everybody's goal is to keep/make code readable (accusations of trying
to obfuscate are silly). You, people, are just not agreeing what
readable means. Hoping to aid
... Unless we're talking about modifications to existing files where
either style(9) or other systematic styles apply, in which case we
should all try to adapt our changes to that style to avoid babelized
codelayout.
Absolutely. I was talking only about my own code, and code which I
modify
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:53:08 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
The parans have the same function as commas in most latin alphabet
based languages: to convey structure.
I think you've picked the wrong analogy. The rules of the language
dictate certain cases in which commas are required.
On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 10:27:00 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:55:21 EST, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Everybody's goal is to keep/make code readable (accusations of trying
to obfuscate are silly). You, people, are just not agreeing what
readable means. Hoping to aid in
The parans have the same function as commas in most latin alphabet
based languages: to convey structure.
I think you've picked the wrong analogy. The rules of the language
dictate certain cases in which commas are required. Extraneous use of
commas decreases readability.
Wrong, there are 3
so far you are the first and only objector..
which makes you outnumbered by 10 to 1 on email counts..
I agree completely, saving a few bytes in the source code is not
worth the obfuscation that results, writing correct programs is hard
enough as it is, without having to suffer from
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:01:23 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
I can't imagine how unnecessary parens are going to improve
readability for anyone who knows his/her operator precedence.
What about the others?
I'd like to know that people who don't know operator precedence are
leaving the kernel
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:01:23 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
I can't imagine how unnecessary parens are going to improve
readability for anyone who knows his/her operator precedence.
What about the others?
I'd like to know that people who
+[ Doug Rabson ]-
| On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
|
| The reason I'm interested in this (now tiresome) thread is that I'd much
| rather have to read
|
| /*
| * Bail out if the time left to next transaction is less than
|
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 12:05:04PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:01:23 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote:
I can't imagine how unnecessary parens are going to improve
readability for anyone who knows his/her operator precedence.
What about the others?
I'd like to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 29-Jan-99 Sheldon Hearn wrote:
When it comes to code, do you not agree that the trained eye knows which
operators to seek to first in an expression? I can't think of an analogy
in the English language, since one doesn't seek to commas, one simply
reads
+[ Julian Elischer ]-
| yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9)
| so I'm going to do it later tonight..
| (It doesn't make extra braces MANDATORY but it does ALLOW them.)
|
| julian
| (if this doesn't bring
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Brian Somers wrote:
[...]
But where do you draw the line in style(9) ? Dunno.
Err on the side of redundancy, which cam be mechanically removed if you
don't happen to like it.
--
Bob Bishop +44 118 977 4017
r...@gid.co.uk fax +44 118 989 4254
To
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
As far as I see it, there are a lot of people who are saying
I want to use parens to improve readability
when what they really mean is
I want to use parens to obviate the need to learn operator precedence.
I can't imagine how unnecessary parens are going to
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
I didn't have a problem reading the sentence, even though you left out
required commas. The only thing that caused a problem was your use of
split infinitive. ;-)
Split infinitive is a urban legend. It has *never* been outlawed in
the english language, except for some
As for noise, there are situations where excess punctuation is just
noise, and there are situations that benefit from more than the bare
minumum of decorations. Anyone doing kernel programming ought to know
the difference.
And that is where we disagree. Style is religion, and one man's
Unless things have changed a lot, bde counts 50x most people. This
isn't a democracy.
It may not be a democracy, but it's also not a monarchy. :-)
...
Bruce only gets 50x the vote on occasion by generally being the only
one to comment at all.
Bruce should get 50X the vote since he's
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces
say change style(9).
Well, here is my change..
You can count my vote.
I would also add a paragraph like this:
If possible code should complile cleanly with
I seem to remember there once was a comment in a well-known body of code, which
went something like:
You are not supposed to understand this.
Brian Feldman_ __ ___ ___ ___
gr...@unixhelp.org _ __ ___ | _ ) __| \
In message 199901291121.vaa01...@zeus.theinternet.com.au Andrew Kenneth
Milton writes:
: The only arguments I've seen for less 'punctuation' are
:
: a) I don't need them
: b) I don't like what it looks like with them
: c) There might be bugs introduced due to parens.
:
: Well a and b are crap,
In message 199901291530.iaa06...@mt.sri.com Nate Williams writes:
: Bruce should get 50X the vote since he's the only one willing to enforce
: the rules. Without Bruce the code would become inconsistant. By
: over-ruling we are essentially
Essentially what?
I appreciate the work that bruce has
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
When it comes to code, do you not agree that the trained eye knows which
operators to seek to first in an expression? I can't think of an analogy
in the English language, since one doesn't seek to commas, one simply
reads from left to right.
The
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Giving folks the go-ahead to use parens as a form of documentation is
misguided and will end in tears. MHO.
Giving people the ability to quickly prove that the code matches the
comments when they're upto their behinds in alligators is not going to
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
if ((a 0) (b 0))
Personally while I KNOW (after wasting a second thinking about it) that
the example below is the same as that above, I ALWAYS code as above.
It takes me about 1/5th the time to know what it means.
if (a 0 b 0)
If
: If I were working on this code written by someone else it'd leave my
: editor looking like the top example, that's for sure. I think that
: How easy is it to edit a piece of code and still have it do what you
: expect is an important consideration, because people DO edit things.
Agreed.
: I
-Original Message-
From: Doug Rabson [mailto:d...@nlsystems.com]
Sent: 29 January 1999 10:49
To: Sheldon Hearn
Cc: Greg Lehey; curr...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:01:23 +1030
-Original Message-
From: Julian Elischer [mailto:jul...@whistle.com]
Sent: 29 January 1999 17:48
To: Warner Losh
Cc: Andrew Kenneth Milton; curr...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd)
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
if ((a 0) (b 0
On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 9:13:39 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
It would also be nice if somebody whould coerse ident to DTRT.
I've already mentioned that I have a version of indent with DABT.
Shall I polish it up a bit?
Greg
--
See complete headers for address, home page and phone
On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 11:02:48 -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
If I were working on this code written by someone else it'd leave my
editor looking like the top example, that's for sure. I think that
How easy is it to edit a piece of code and still have it do what you
expect is an important
On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 9:13:39 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
It would also be nice if somebody whould coerse ident to DTRT.
I've already mentioned that I have a version of indent with DABT.
Shall I polish it up a bit?
You've got my vote.
Greg
--
See complete headers for
Question: how many people still limit their editor windows to 80
characters?
Almost everyone in my group, since alot of development is done on
laptops with small screens, or done remotely.
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
of intelligibility. Consider one possible expansion
if (((allocationfail | (IGNOREFAILUREMASK (incount %
BLKSIZE))) ^ failures) != 0)
or
if (((allocationfail |
(IGNOREFAILUREMASK (incount %
: Question: how many people still limit their editor windows to 80
: characters?
:
:Almost everyone in my group, since alot of development is done on
:laptops with small screens, or done remotely.
:
:Nate
I do, because if use anything larger some lines will inevitably go
over and I'll get
Question: how many people still limit their editor windows to 80
characters?
I do :-/ So that I don't write code 80 columns.
Greg
--
Brian br...@awfulhak.org br...@freebsd.org br...@openbsd.org
http://www.Awfulhak.org
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
To Unsubscribe: send
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:49:43 +1030, Greg Lehey g...@lemis.com said:
Question: how many people still limit their editor windows to 80
characters?
Probably almost anyone who uses the default settings.
Many people like to be able to see more than one thing on the desktop
at a time. Even with a
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 11:02:48AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
Yes. I agree with that.
if (a | b c % d ^ e)
should have been written as:
if (((a | (b (c % d))) ^ e) != 0)
I don't know why I'm getting into this, but to prove the point that this
expression takes careful thought,
In message 19990129204521.a73...@znh.org Zach Heilig writes:
: On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 11:02:48AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
: Yes. I agree with that.
: if (a | b c % d ^ e)
: should have been written as:
: if (((a | (b (c % d))) ^ e) != 0)
:
: I don't know why I'm getting into
Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces
say change style(9).
Well, here is my change..
I think theere is enough support for this that this should be discussed
seriously, and It's not like in the good old days, or
I'm not used to extra parenthesis are not going to be
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces
say change style(9).
Amazingly there hasn't been a SINGLE comment!
(after a whole 8 hours!)
julian
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe
Julian Elischer writes:
Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces
say change style(9).
Well, here is my change..
You can count my vote.
I would also add a paragraph like this:
If possible code should complile cleanly with gcc's -Wall flag.
Note however that
Julian Elischer jul...@whistle.com wrote:
Well, here is my change..
I think it's a good move and I'll support it (FWIW).
@@ -256,13 +256,23 @@
.Ed
.Pp
Space after keywords (if, while, for, return, switch). No braces are
-used for control statements with zero or only a single statement.
+used
Some people when confronted by people wanting to have extra braces
say change style(9).
Well, here is my change..
You can count my vote.
I would also add a paragraph like this:
If possible code should complile cleanly with gcc's -Wall flag.
Note however that this does not
Nate Williams writes:
I hope that wording is sufficiently unoffensive to the -Wall haters.
'-Wall haters'. That almost sounds like 'Wall-flowers' or something. :)
:-)
Agreed, but that's not the only reason I dislike '-Wall'. The other
reason is that some of the warnings enabled in -Wall
:Yes, that's true... but on balance I (personally) find it's worth
:the tradeoff.
:
:On the other hand, I can't stand the GNU coding style..
:
:-Archie
:
:___
:Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. *
Beyond that it's pretty much just /| and /|| precedences. I personally
*never* liked the fact that C gave and | ( and and || ) differentl
precedences. IMHO, the arithmatic-vs-shift parenthesization is something
I've *always* done myself, so I don't mind those warnings
yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9)
so I'm going to do it later tonight..
(It doesn't make extra braces MANDATORY but it does ALLOW them.)
julian
(if this doesn't bring some NEYs I'll be amazed..)
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
Beyond that
:that day on, I never put assignments in conditionals with an explicit
:boolean test, aka if ((a = b) != 0) { ... }.
Oops, I meant 'without an explicit boolean test'.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with
yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9)
Of course I object.
so I'm going to do it later tonight..
If you commit it, then I will back it out.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 01:25:07PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9)
Of course I object.
My mail system appears to have accidentally deleted your excellent and
well-considered reasons for not allowing style(9) to say it's OK to
so far you are the first and only objector..
which makes you outnumbered by 10 to 1 on email counts..
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Bruce Evans wrote:
yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9)
Of course I object.
so I'm going to do it later tonight..
If you
In article pine.bsf.3.95.990128184127.11856m-100...@current1.whistle.com,
Julian Elischer jul...@whistle.com wrote:
so far you are the first and only objector..
which makes you outnumbered by 10 to 1 on email counts..
Uh, votes last longer than 8 hours around here. You should give
people 3
+[ Julian Elischer ]-
| yeah but not a SINGLE person has said to not commit the patch to style(9)
| so I'm going to do it later tonight..
| (It doesn't make extra braces MANDATORY but it does ALLOW them.)
|
| julian
| (if this doesn't bring some
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, John Polstra wrote:
In article pine.bsf.3.95.990128184127.11856m-100...@current1.whistle.com,
Julian Elischer jul...@whistle.com wrote:
so far you are the first and only objector..
which makes you outnumbered by 10 to 1 on email counts..
Uh, votes last longer than
Of course I object.
My mail system appears to have accidentally deleted your excellent and
well-considered reasons for not allowing style(9) to say it's OK to
use extra braces or parenthesis when it makes your code more
comprehensible.
Perhaps it is in some of your backups from 5 years ago.
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Bruce Evans wrote:
style(9) is supposed to document KNF. It is not supposed to document
best coding practices, julian's preferences or bde's preferences.
KNF is not a static thing that cannot be changed.
KNF is in effect whatever is written in style(9).
In case I hadn't
+[ Julian Elischer ]-
|
| On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Bruce Evans wrote:
| style(9) is supposed to document KNF. It is not supposed to document
| best coding practices, julian's preferences or bde's preferences.
|
| KNF is not a static thing that
Bruce Evans wrote:
[..]
Perhaps you could repeat it?
style(9) is supposed to document KNF. It is not supposed to document
best coding practices, julian's preferences or bde's preferences.
style(9) is not KNF, and never was intended to be. It's a FreeBSD style
guide that bears similarity to
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 02:26:51PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
My mail system appears to have accidentally deleted your excellent and
well-considered reasons for not allowing style(9) to say it's OK to
use extra braces or parenthesis when it makes your code more
comprehensible.
Perhaps it is
In message
pine.bsf.3.95.990128184127.11856m-100...@current1.whistle.com Julian
Elischer writes:
: so far you are the first and only objector..
: which makes you outnumbered by 10 to 1 on email counts..
Unless things have changed a lot, bde counts 50x most people. This
isn't a democracy.
Warner
The resounding responce SO FAR (except for you) has been either
I don't really care about those changes or YES please!
I've heard 3 'yes' votes, and I've abstained from commenting at this
time because I got beat up last time I mentioned something.
Nate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
In message 19990128230223.a1...@netmonger.net Christopher Masto writes:
: Encouraging unreadable code is something I find highly questionable.
Sadly, unreadable is in the eyes of the beholder. Code style is a
highly religious and contentious issue...
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
The apparent infallability of code and historical documents anyone
tries to update suggests that the Pope was involved with CSRG.
No, but in general the combined experience of the CSRG folks is greater
than most of the programmers here.
Encouraging unreadable code is something I find highly
On Thursday, 28 January 1999 at 19:41:29 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Bruce Evans wrote:
style(9) is supposed to document KNF. It is not supposed to document
best coding practices, julian's preferences or bde's preferences.
KNF is not a static thing that cannot be
Greg Lehey wrote:
I don't think they're a good idea. Sure, I don't like style(9), but
if we're going to overhaul it, we should do it properly. Given the
diversity of opinion expressed every time anybody has tried the
smallest change, I don't see that happening, so why don't we just
forget
On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 16:26:53 +1100, John Birrell wrote:
Greg Lehey wrote:
I don't think they're a good idea. Sure, I don't like style(9), but
if we're going to overhaul it, we should do it properly. Given the
diversity of opinion expressed every time anybody has tried the
smallest
[...]
%We spend so much of our time looking up our own collective asses searching
%for the meaning of life that it is no wonder FreeBSD doesn't feel like it
%has a clear direction for the future. All people seem to want to do is
%stomp on others who try to contribute something.
Come on John,
The changes seem pretty reasonable, to me. I don't see why you are
so rabid about not allowing a few extra braces for clarity. It would
make the code more readable.
Besides, a great deal of the preexisting code already uses braces
even in single statement if()'s... and a
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 09:39:36PM -0700, Nate Williams wrote:
Encouraging unreadable code is something I find highly questionable.
I find the KNF style highly readable. As a matter of fact, I find the
extra parentheses *often* to be a bunch of noise.
And, as Bruce implied, if you don't
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 16:26:53 +1100, John Birrell wrote:
I'm sure they might. But they'd be wrong. I do believe that
maintaining a coherent style is a Good Thing. I just dislike the
particular style, but since it doesn't significantly
On Thursday, 28 January 1999 at 21:43:41 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Friday, 29 January 1999 at 16:26:53 +1100, John Birrell wrote:
I'm sure they might. But they'd be wrong. I do believe that
maintaining a coherent style is a Good Thing. I
Matthew Dillon once stated:
=The changes seem pretty reasonable, to me. I don't see why you are
=so rabid about not allowing a few extra braces for clarity. It
=would make the code more readable.
Somehow, this just reminded me of the US Communication Decency Act,
where indecency was
Russell L. Carter wrote:
Come on John, this has *meaning*. For or against -Wall
*stands* for something! We have constitutional procedures
to solve this thing!
The constitutional procedures just stomp on things because the
few who complain the loudest drown out those who silently or
style(9) is not KNF, and never was intended to be. It's a FreeBSD style
guide that bears similarity to KNF because that's what it used as a
starting point.
I think we can safely presume that Bruce has been overruled on this
one. If the collective definition is different than his, and it
98 matches
Mail list logo
