In article <12312.1616877...@splode.eterna.com.au>,
matthew green wrote:
>> Sounds good. Will it mean that the following code is also preferred to
>> use parentheses? I like the simplicity without the parentheses, but for
>> consistency and simplicity of the rule set, I'd also accept the
>> par
> Sounds good. Will it mean that the following code is also preferred to
> use parentheses? I like the simplicity without the parentheses, but for
> consistency and simplicity of the rule set, I'd also accept the
> parenthesized version.
>
> snprintf(buf, sizeof buf, "%s%s", arg1, arg2);
FW
> On Mar 27, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Roland Illig wrote:
>
> On 27.03.2021 08:59, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> I think we should document we prefer the parenthesized version in style
>> and call it a day.
>
> Sounds good. Will it mean that the following code is also preferred to
> use parentheses? I
On 27.03.2021 08:59, Christos Zoulas wrote:
I think we should document we prefer the parenthesized version in style
and call it a day.
Sounds good. Will it mean that the following code is also preferred to
use parentheses? I like the simplicity without the parentheses, but for
consistency and
In article ,
Valery Ushakov wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 01:44:07 +0100, Roland Illig wrote:
>
>> On 27.03.2021 00:16, Valery Ushakov wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 00:01:25 +0100, Roland Illig wrote:
>> > > To me, writing 'sizeof expr' is clearer than 'sizeof(expr)' since
>> > > 'sizeof'
