Hi David,
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:30:15 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > > > Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
> > >
> > > But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
By definition of "needless", none. But the question is precisely
whether the parentheses are always needless. The
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:51:56 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:25:30 +0200 Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Remove a not particularly relevant rule from CodingStyle.
> > Sometimes, printing numbers in parentheses doesn't add value, but in
> > some
Hi Andrew,
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:51:56 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:25:30 +0200 Jean Delvare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remove a not particularly relevant rule from CodingStyle.
Sometimes, printing numbers in parentheses doesn't add value, but in
some (most?) cases
Hi David,
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:30:15 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
By definition of needless, none. But the question is precisely
whether the parentheses are always needless. The way your
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:51:56 PDT, Andrew Morton said:
> Printing something like
>
> bytes remaining: 0x12 (18)
>
> is a quite logical thing to do, although pretty darm pointless.
On the other hand, printing this:
magic number: 0x2710
probably doesn't ring any bells, but if you
David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
>> >
>> > But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
>>
>> Who says that needless parens could provide value?
>
> Jean, which is why he submitted the patch.
> You, implicitly, by acking a patch
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:30:15 -0700 David Brownell wrote:
> > > > Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
> > >
> > > But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
> >
> > Who says that needless parens could provide value?
>
> Jean, which is why he submitted the patch.
> You, implicitly,
> > > Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
> >
> > But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
>
> Who says that needless parens could provide value?
Jean, which is why he submitted the patch.
You, implicitly, by acking a patch saying those parens are bad.
But not me ... I don't think
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:53:06 -0700 David Brownell wrote:
> > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 29 11:40:17 2007
> >
> > Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
>
> But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
Who says that needless parens could provide value?
> "Yet Another Subtle And
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 29 11:40:17 2007
>
> Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
"Yet Another Subtle And Hard To Fix Source Of Bloat" is
not a plus.
I'd kind of think a change like this should have some
positive motivation.
-
To
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:51:56 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:25:30 +0200 Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Remove a not particularly relevant rule from CodingStyle.
> > Sometimes, printing numbers in parentheses doesn't add value, but in
> > some (most?) cases it
> > -Printing numbers in parentheses (%d) adds no value and should be avoided.
>
> I wonder how that got there.
Well, the only place that numbers "naturally" appear wrapped in
parenthesis is tables of credits and debits... as a debit, sort
of a literal "add no value" situation. ;)
Oh, and for
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:25:30 +0200 Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remove a not particularly relevant rule from CodingStyle.
> Sometimes, printing numbers in parentheses doesn't add value, but in
> some (most?) cases it makes the message easier to read. As a matter of
> fact, this
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:25:30 +0200 Jean Delvare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remove a not particularly relevant rule from CodingStyle.
Sometimes, printing numbers in parentheses doesn't add value, but in
some (most?) cases it makes the message easier to read. As a matter of
fact, this practice is
-Printing numbers in parentheses (%d) adds no value and should be avoided.
I wonder how that got there.
Well, the only place that numbers naturally appear wrapped in
parenthesis is tables of credits and debits... as a debit, sort
of a literal add no value situation. ;)
Oh, and for
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:51:56 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:25:30 +0200 Jean Delvare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remove a not particularly relevant rule from CodingStyle.
Sometimes, printing numbers in parentheses doesn't add value, but in
some (most?) cases it makes the
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 29 11:40:17 2007
Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
Yet Another Subtle And Hard To Fix Source Of Bloat is
not a plus.
I'd kind of think a change like this should have some
positive motivation.
-
To
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:53:06 -0700 David Brownell wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Sep 29 11:40:17 2007
Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
Who says that needless parens could provide value?
Yet Another Subtle And Hard To Fix
Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
Who says that needless parens could provide value?
Jean, which is why he submitted the patch.
You, implicitly, by acking a patch saying those parens are bad.
But not me ... I don't think this
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:30:15 -0700 David Brownell wrote:
Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
Who says that needless parens could provide value?
Jean, which is why he submitted the patch.
You, implicitly, by acking a patch
David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's kill it, please. (i.e., ACK)
But ... why? What value could needless parens provide?
Who says that needless parens could provide value?
Jean, which is why he submitted the patch.
You, implicitly, by acking a patch saying those parens
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:51:56 PDT, Andrew Morton said:
Printing something like
bytes remaining: 0x12 (18)
is a quite logical thing to do, although pretty darm pointless.
On the other hand, printing this:
magic number: 0x2710
probably doesn't ring any bells, but if you
22 matches
Mail list logo
