Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Nico Weber]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:31 PM Darin Adler  wrote:

> I tried not to weigh in on this, but my view on the materials we should
> use to build the bike shed must be shared!
>
> Generally it seems neat to be able to make the code slightly more tight
> and terse by merging the function call and the return into a single
> statement.
>
> Other than not being accustomed to it, I have noticed three small things I
> don’t like about using “return” with a call to a void-returning function.
>
> - You can’t use this idiom when you want to ignore the result of a
> function, only if the function actually returns void. Often functions are
> designed with ignorable and often ignored return values. For example, it’s
> common to call something that might fail and have a good reason to ignore
> whether it failed or not. The idiom we are discussing requires treating
> those functions differently from ones that return void. If you refactor so
> that a function now returns an ignorable return value you need to visit all
> the call sites using return and change them into the two line form.
>

That works, you just have to spell it `return (void)non_void_fun();` :D


>
> - It works for return, but not for break. I’ve seen at least one case
> where someone filled a switch statement with return statements instead of
> break statements so they could use this more-terse form. Now if we want to
> add one line of code after that switch, we need to convert all those cases
> into multi-line statements with break.
>
> - Unless it’s mandatory, it’s a case where two programmers can make
> different style choices. If both forms are acceptable, then it introduces a
> little bit of disorder into our code.
>
> One thing I like about it is that since “pass along the return value from
> this inner function to this outer function” can be written this way, the
> code can then survive refactorings where both the inner and outer functions
> might gain or lose the return value.
>
> — Darin
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Ryosuke Niwa]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:31 AM Darin Adler  wrote:

> I tried not to weigh in on this, but my view on the materials we should
> use to build the bike shed must be shared!
>
> Generally it seems neat to be able to make the code slightly more tight
> and terse by merging the function call and the return into a single
> statement.
>
> Other than not being accustomed to it, I have noticed three small things I
> don’t like about using “return” with a call to a void-returning function.
>
> - You can’t use this idiom when you want to ignore the result of a
> function, only if the function actually returns void. Often functions are
> designed with ignorable and often ignored return values. For example, it’s
> common to call something that might fail and have a good reason to ignore
> whether it failed or not. The idiom we are discussing requires treating
> those functions differently from ones that return void. If you refactor so
> that a function now returns an ignorable return value you need to visit all
> the call sites using return and change them into the two line form.
>

Perhaps this is the key distinction we want to make. Maybe if the *intent*
is to ignore the function's return value regardless of what it may return
in the future, then we should have a separate "return". If the *intent* is
to return whatever that other function returns, then we should return void.
But having to think about the intent of code isn't a great thing for coding
style guideline.

- It works for return, but not for break. I’ve seen at least one case where
> someone filled a switch statement with return statements instead of break
> statements so they could use this more-terse form. Now if we want to add
> one line of code after that switch, we need to convert all those cases into
> multi-line statements with break.
>

This is an orthogonal point but I do prefer switch'es that return directly
over one that break's then having a separate return after the switch
statement especially if the switch statement is long.

I've gotta say I'm fascinated to learn that many people are bothered by
returning void. I guess I was never bothered by it because I see a return
statement as a thing that returns the control back to the caller, not a
thing that returns a value.

- R. Niwa
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Darin Adler]

I tried not to weigh in on this, but my view on the materials we should use to 
build the bike shed must be shared!

Generally it seems neat to be able to make the code slightly more tight and 
terse by merging the function call and the return into a single statement.

Other than not being accustomed to it, I have noticed three small things I 
don’t like about using “return” with a call to a void-returning function.

- You can’t use this idiom when you want to ignore the result of a function, 
only if the function actually returns void. Often functions are designed with 
ignorable and often ignored return values. For example, it’s common to call 
something that might fail and have a good reason to ignore whether it failed or 
not. The idiom we are discussing requires treating those functions differently 
from ones that return void. If you refactor so that a function now returns an 
ignorable return value you need to visit all the call sites using return and 
change them into the two line form.

- It works for return, but not for break. I’ve seen at least one case where 
someone filled a switch statement with return statements instead of break 
statements so they could use this more-terse form. Now if we want to add one 
line of code after that switch, we need to convert all those cases into 
multi-line statements with break.

- Unless it’s mandatory, it’s a case where two programmers can make different 
style choices. If both forms are acceptable, then it introduces a little bit of 
disorder into our code.

One thing I like about it is that since “pass along the return value from this 
inner function to this outer function” can be written this way, the code can 
then survive refactorings where both the inner and outer functions might gain 
or lose the return value.

— Darin
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Alex Christensen]

I like it mostly for its brevity, but I also think it would be strange that 
changing a return type from bool to void or vice versa would require touching 
all its call sites.

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 1:20 PM, Chris Dumez  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 1:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> It seems like `return foo();` where foo() is a void function can always be 
>> replaced with `foo(); return;` for greater clarity at the cost of one extra 
>> line break. For people who prefer the one-line style, can you say why you 
>> don’t like the other way?
> 
> We do not allow more than one statement per line so it would be:
> foo();
> return;
> 
> Also, since we favor early returns in WebKit, things like:
> If (!nok)
> return completionHandler(Failed);
> 
> Would become:
> If (!nok) {
> completionHandler(Failed);
> return;
> }
> 
> It is not a big deal but I personally prefer the most concise version. 
> Especially, it is not uncommon to have multiple early returns.
> I think more concise is better and I personally do not see a readability 
> issue here. It does not really matter what the completion handler is 
> returning.
> 
>> 
>>  - Maciej
>> 
>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 10:33 AM, Simon Fraser >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I find it mind bending. It makes me wonder if the author made a coding 
>>> error.
>>> 
>>> Simon
>>> 
 On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Daniel Bates >>> > wrote:
 
 Thanks for the opinion!
 
 Dan
 
 On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:26 AM, Saam Barati >>> > wrote:
 
> I prefer it as well.
> 
> - Saam
> 
> On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dumez  > wrote:
> 
>> I also prefer allowed returning void. 
>> 
>> Chris Dumez
>> 
>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates > > wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa >> > wrote:
>>> 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates >>> > wrote:
 > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates >>> > > wrote:
 >
 > Hi all,
 >
 > Something bothers me about code like:
 >
 > void f();
 > void g()
 > {
 > if (...)
 > return f();
 > return f();
 > }
 >
 > I prefer:
 >
 > void g()
 > {
 > if (...) {
 > f();
 > return
 > }
 > f();
 > }
 >
 Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
 the latter style.
 
 I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. 
 Geoff 
>>> 
>>> I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote:
>>> 
>>> ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.***
>>> Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please 
>>> confirm: for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion.
>>> 
 and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void,
>>> 
>>> I got this from Alex's message
>>> 
 and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does 
 this. 
>>> 
>>> I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine:
>>> 
>>> I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super 
>>> common***, but I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also 
>>> does this.
>>> 
 Zalan also said he does this in his layout code.
>>> 
>>> I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine:
>>> 
>>> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
>>> compact code.
>>> ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)***
>>> 
>>> By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a 
>>> separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this 
>>> email I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it 
>>> clearly.
>>> 
 - R. Niwa
 
>>> ___
>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>> 
 ___
 webkit-dev mailing list
 

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Chris Dumez]

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 1:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak  wrote:
> 
> 
> It seems like `return foo();` where foo() is a void function can always be 
> replaced with `foo(); return;` for greater clarity at the cost of one extra 
> line break. For people who prefer the one-line style, can you say why you 
> don’t like the other way?

We do not allow more than one statement per line so it would be:
foo();
return;

Also, since we favor early returns in WebKit, things like:
If (!nok)
return completionHandler(Failed);

Would become:
If (!nok) {
completionHandler(Failed);
return;
}

It is not a big deal but I personally prefer the most concise version. 
Especially, it is not uncommon to have multiple early returns.
I think more concise is better and I personally do not see a readability issue 
here. It does not really matter what the completion handler is returning.

> 
>  - Maciej
> 
>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 10:33 AM, Simon Fraser > > wrote:
>> 
>> I find it mind bending. It makes me wonder if the author made a coding error.
>> 
>> Simon
>> 
>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Daniel Bates >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the opinion!
>>> 
>>> Dan
>>> 
>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:26 AM, Saam Barati >> > wrote:
>>> 
 I prefer it as well.
 
 - Saam
 
 On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dumez >>> > wrote:
 
> I also prefer allowed returning void. 
> 
> Chris Dumez
> 
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates  > wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa > > wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates >> > wrote:
>>> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Something bothers me about code like:
>>> >
>>> > void f();
>>> > void g()
>>> > {
>>> > if (...)
>>> > return f();
>>> > return f();
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > I prefer:
>>> >
>>> > void g()
>>> > {
>>> > if (...) {
>>> > f();
>>> > return
>>> > }
>>> > f();
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
>>> the latter style.
>>> 
>>> I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. 
>>> Geoff
>> 
>> I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote:
>> 
>> ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.***
>> Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please 
>> confirm: for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion.
>> 
>>> and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void,
>> 
>> I got this from Alex's message
>> 
>>> and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does 
>>> this.
>> 
>> I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine:
>> 
>> I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super common***, 
>> but I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also does this.
>> 
>>> Zalan also said he does this in his layout code.
>> 
>> I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine:
>> 
>> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
>> compact code.
>> ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)***
>> 
>> By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a 
>> separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this 
>> email I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it clearly.
>> 
>>> - R. Niwa
>>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
> 
>>> ___
>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> 

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Maciej Stachowiak]

It seems like `return foo();` where foo() is a void function can always be 
replaced with `foo(); return;` for greater clarity at the cost of one extra 
line break. For people who prefer the one-line style, can you say why you don’t 
like the other way?

 - Maciej

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 10:33 AM, Simon Fraser  wrote:
> 
> I find it mind bending. It makes me wonder if the author made a coding error.
> 
> Simon
> 
>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Daniel Bates > > wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for the opinion!
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:26 AM, Saam Barati > > wrote:
>> 
>>> I prefer it as well.
>>> 
>>> - Saam
>>> 
>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dumez >> > wrote:
>>> 
 I also prefer allowed returning void. 
 
 Chris Dumez
 
 On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates >>> > wrote:
 
> 
> 
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  > wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates > > wrote:
>> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Something bothers me about code like:
>> >
>> > void f();
>> > void g()
>> > {
>> > if (...)
>> > return f();
>> > return f();
>> > }
>> >
>> > I prefer:
>> >
>> > void g()
>> > {
>> > if (...) {
>> > f();
>> > return
>> > }
>> > f();
>> > }
>> >
>> Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
>> the latter style.
>> 
>> I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. Geoff
> 
> I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote:
> 
> ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.***
> Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please 
> confirm: for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion.
> 
>> and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void,
> 
> I got this from Alex's message
> 
>> and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does 
>> this.
> 
> I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine:
> 
> I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super common***, 
> but I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also does this.
> 
>> Zalan also said he does this in his layout code.
> 
> I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine:
> 
> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
> compact code.
> ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)***
> 
> By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a 
> separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this 
> email I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it clearly.
> 
>> - R. Niwa
>> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
> 
 ___
 webkit-dev mailing list
 webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
 https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 12:33 PM, Simon Fraser  
wrote:
I find it mind bending. It makes me wonder if the author made a 
coding error.


Yeah me too. It does seem to work nicely in Alex's CompletionHandler 
example, but still, I'd just add braces and return on an extra line if 
I was writing it.


Anyway, it seems we don't have any consensus here, so no need to create 
a rule.


Michael

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Said Abou-Hallawa]

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 10:35 AM, Mark Lam  wrote:
> 
> I also prefer it, and I think some coding patterns may require it e.g. in 
> templates where sometimes we want to specialize into a void function, and 
> other times into a function that returns a value.  However, this is rarely 
> needed in practice.  Without being able to return void, writing such a 
> template will be a pain if not impossible.

But the template and the macro cases are different. The void return in this 
case is implicit and you do not recognize it unless you see the caller.

template
auto caller(const Functor& functor)
{
return functor();
}

Nothing in the return statement above says it will return void. But if you pass 
it a pointer to a returning void function it will. So outside the scope of 
macros and templates, I think returning void is not nor really needed.

> 
> Mark
> 
>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:26 AM, Saam Barati > > wrote:
>> 
>> I prefer it as well.
>> 
>> - Saam
>> 
>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dumez > > wrote:
>> 
>>> I also prefer allowed returning void. 
>>> 
>>> Chris Dumez
>>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates >> > wrote:
>>> 
 
 
 On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa >>> > wrote:
 
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates  > wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Something bothers me about code like:
> >
> > void f();
> > void g()
> > {
> > if (...)
> > return f();
> > return f();
> > }
> >
> > I prefer:
> >
> > void g()
> > {
> > if (...) {
> > f();
> > return
> > }
> > f();
> > }
> >
> Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
> the latter style.
> 
> I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. Geoff
 
 I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote:
 
 ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.***
 Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please 
 confirm: for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion.
 
> and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void,
 
 I got this from Alex's message
 
> and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does this.
 
 I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine:
 
 I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super common***, 
 but I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also does this.
 
> Zalan also said he does this in his layout code.
 
 I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine:
 
 I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
 compact code.
 ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)***
 
 By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a 
 separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this 
 email I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it clearly.
 
> - R. Niwa
> 
 ___
 webkit-dev mailing list
 webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
 https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
 
>>> ___
>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Mark Lam]

I also prefer it, and I think some coding patterns may require it e.g. in 
templates where sometimes we want to specialize into a void function, and other 
times into a function that returns a value.  However, this is rarely needed in 
practice.  Without being able to return void, writing such a template will be a 
pain if not impossible.

Mark

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:26 AM, Saam Barati  wrote:
> 
> I prefer it as well.
> 
> - Saam
> 
> On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dumez  > wrote:
> 
>> I also prefer allowed returning void. 
>> 
>> Chris Dumez
>> 
>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates > > wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa >> > wrote:
>>> 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates >>> > wrote:
 > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates >>> > > wrote:
 >
 > Hi all,
 >
 > Something bothers me about code like:
 >
 > void f();
 > void g()
 > {
 > if (...)
 > return f();
 > return f();
 > }
 >
 > I prefer:
 >
 > void g()
 > {
 > if (...) {
 > f();
 > return
 > }
 > f();
 > }
 >
 Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
 the latter style.
 
 I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. Geoff
>>> 
>>> I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote:
>>> 
>>> ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.***
>>> Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please confirm: 
>>> for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion.
>>> 
 and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void,
>>> 
>>> I got this from Alex's message
>>> 
 and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does this.
>>> 
>>> I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine:
>>> 
>>> I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super common***, 
>>> but I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also does this.
>>> 
 Zalan also said he does this in his layout code.
>>> 
>>> I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine:
>>> 
>>> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
>>> compact code.
>>> ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)***
>>> 
>>> By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a 
>>> separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this 
>>> email I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it clearly.
>>> 
 - R. Niwa
 
>>> ___
>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Simon Fraser]

I find it mind bending. It makes me wonder if the author made a coding error.

Simon

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the opinion!
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:26 AM, Saam Barati  > wrote:
> 
>> I prefer it as well.
>> 
>> - Saam
>> 
>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dumez > > wrote:
>> 
>>> I also prefer allowed returning void. 
>>> 
>>> Chris Dumez
>>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates >> > wrote:
>>> 
 
 
 On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa >>> > wrote:
 
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates  > wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Something bothers me about code like:
> >
> > void f();
> > void g()
> > {
> > if (...)
> > return f();
> > return f();
> > }
> >
> > I prefer:
> >
> > void g()
> > {
> > if (...) {
> > f();
> > return
> > }
> > f();
> > }
> >
> Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
> the latter style.
> 
> I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. Geoff
 
 I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote:
 
 ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.***
 Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please 
 confirm: for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion.
 
> and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void,
 
 I got this from Alex's message
 
> and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does this.
 
 I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine:
 
 I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super common***, 
 but I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also does this.
 
> Zalan also said he does this in his layout code.
 
 I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine:
 
 I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
 compact code.
 ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)***
 
 By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a 
 separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this 
 email I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it clearly.
 
> - R. Niwa
> 
 ___
 webkit-dev mailing list
 webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
 https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
 
>>> ___
>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>>> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Chris Dumez]

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
> 
> Okay, you’ve changed your mind from your earlier email of not having a strong 
> opinion. Would have been good to know from the get-go. Better late than never 
> knowing :/

I did not change my mind. I said I was using this pattern in my code. So did 
other people. If we use it in our code, it is because we prefer it.
What I meant to say is that if a majority of people felt strongly that we 
should not allow this pattern, then I would not stand in the way.

I don’t think this mail thread showed that people strongly feel that we should 
not allow this pattern. Therefore, I was also surprised by your email saying 
that we’d reached a consensus.

> 
> Dan
> 
> On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dumez  > wrote:
> 
>> I also prefer allowed returning void. 
>> 
>> Chris Dumez
>> 
>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates > > wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa >> > wrote:
>>> 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates >>> > wrote:
 > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates >>> > > wrote:
 >
 > Hi all,
 >
 > Something bothers me about code like:
 >
 > void f();
 > void g()
 > {
 > if (...)
 > return f();
 > return f();
 > }
 >
 > I prefer:
 >
 > void g()
 > {
 > if (...) {
 > f();
 > return
 > }
 > f();
 > }
 >
 Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
 the latter style.
 
 I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. Geoff
>>> 
>>> I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote:
>>> 
>>> ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.***
>>> Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please confirm: 
>>> for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion.
>>> 
 and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void,
>>> 
>>> I got this from Alex's message
>>> 
 and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does this.
>>> 
>>> I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine:
>>> 
>>> I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super common***, 
>>> but I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also does this.
>>> 
 Zalan also said he does this in his layout code.
>>> 
>>> I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine:
>>> 
>>> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
>>> compact code.
>>> ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)***
>>> 
>>> By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a 
>>> separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this 
>>> email I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it clearly.
>>> 
 - R. Niwa
 
>>> ___
>>> webkit-dev mailing list
>>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>>> 

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Saam Barati]

I prefer it as well.

- Saam

> On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dumez  wrote:
> 
> I also prefer allowed returning void. 
> 
> Chris Dumez
> 
>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
>>> 
 On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates  wrote:
>>> 
 > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
 >
 > Hi all,
 >
 > Something bothers me about code like:
 >
 > void f();
 > void g()
 > {
 > if (...)
 > return f();
 > return f();
 > }
 >
 > I prefer:
 >
 > void g()
 > {
 > if (...) {
 > f();
 > return
 > }
 > f();
 > }
 >
 Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
 the latter style.
>>> 
>>> I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. Geoff
>> 
>> I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote:
>> 
>> ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.***
>> Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please confirm: 
>> for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion.
>> 
>>> and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void,
>> 
>> I got this from Alex's message
>> 
>>> and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does this.
>> 
>> I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine:
>> 
>> I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super common***, but 
>> I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also does this.
>> 
>>> Zalan also said he does this in his layout code.
>> 
>> I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine:
>> 
>> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
>> compact code.
>> ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)***
>> 
>> By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a 
>> separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this email 
>> I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it clearly.
>> 
>>> - R. Niwa
>>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Chris Dumez]

I also prefer allowed returning void. 

Chris Dumez

> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates  wrote:
>> 
>>> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Something bothers me about code like:
>>> >
>>> > void f();
>>> > void g()
>>> > {
>>> > if (...)
>>> > return f();
>>> > return f();
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > I prefer:
>>> >
>>> > void g()
>>> > {
>>> > if (...) {
>>> > f();
>>> > return
>>> > }
>>> > f();
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
>>> the latter style.
>> 
>> I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. Geoff
> 
> I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote:
> 
> ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.***
> Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please confirm: 
> for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion.
> 
>> and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void,
> 
> I got this from Alex's message
> 
>> and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does this.
> 
> I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine:
> 
> I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super common***, but 
> I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also does this.
> 
>> Zalan also said he does this in his layout code.
> 
> I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine:
> 
> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
> compact code.
> ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)***
> 
> By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a separate 
> return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this email I am no 
> longer sure what your position is. Please state it clearly.
> 
>> - R. Niwa
>> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Daniel Bates]

On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa  wrote:

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates  wrote:

> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Something bothers me about code like:
> >
> > void f();
> > void g()
> > {
> > if (...)
> > return f();
> > return f();
> > }
> >
> > I prefer:
> >
> > void g()
> > {
> > if (...) {
> > f();
> > return
> > }
> > f();
> > }
> >
> Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
> the latter style.
>

I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. Geoff


I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote:

***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.***

Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please
confirm: for the former style, for the latter style, no strong
opinion.


and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void,


I got this from Alex's message

and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does this.


I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine:

I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super
common***, but I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also
does this.


Zalan also said he does this in his layout code.


I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine:

I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
compact code.
***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)***


By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a
separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this
email I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it clearly.

- R. Niwa
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Ryosuke Niwa]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates  wrote:

> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Something bothers me about code like:
> >
> > void f();
> > void g()
> > {
> > if (...)
> > return f();
> > return f();
> > }
> >
> > I prefer:
> >
> > void g()
> > {
> > if (...) {
> > f();
> > return
> > }
> > f();
> > }
> >
> Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
> the latter style.
>

I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. Geoff
and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void, and Saam
pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does this. Zalan
also said he does this in his layout code.

- R. Niwa
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Daniel Bates]

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Something bothers me about code like:
>
> void f();
> void g()
> {
> if (...)
> return f();
> return f();
> }
>
> I prefer:
>
> void g()
> {
> if (...) {
> f();
> return
> }
> f();
> }
>
Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify
the latter style.

Patch posted  for
review of language and examples.

Summary of this thread is in that bug, too.

Dan


> Does it bother you? For the former? For the latter? Update our style guide?
>
> Opinions, please.
>
> Dan
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Keith Miller]

I’ve definitely done this in JSC before. As with everyone else, I don’t feel 
particularly strongly about it.

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 8:45 PM, Chris Dumez  wrote:
> 
> Same here, I used it in PSON code with completion handlers. I liked the more 
> concise code but I also do not feel strongly about it.
> 
> The extra return line often would have meant adding curly brackets for if 
> statements leading to early returns.

IMO, this is why I think all if/elses should have curlies that way I don’t have 
to think about whether or not I need them, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. It would also make 
refactoring code much easier.

> 
> Chris Dumez
> 
> On Feb 7, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Zalan Bujtas  > wrote:
> 
>> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more 
>> compact code.
>> (I don't feel too strongly about it though)
>> 
>> Alan.
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:31 PM Alex Christensen > > wrote:
>> If you search for “return completionHandler” in WebKit you will find over a 
>> hundred instances.  Most if not all of them return void.  It means call the 
>> completion handler and return.  I probably wrote most of them and obviously 
>> think it’s a fabulous idiom.
>> 
>> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 2:32 PM, Geoffrey Garen > > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > FWIW, I’ve always felt conflicted about this case.
>> > 
>> > I very much prefer early return to if/else chains.
>> > 
>> > However, “return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.
>> > 
>> > So, I can’t use my preferred style in functions that return void. Boo. 
>> > 
>> > Geoff
>> > 
>> >> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates > >> > wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Hi all,
>> >> 
>> >> Something bothers me about code like:
>> >> 
>> >> void f();
>> >> void g()
>> >> {
>> >>if (...)
>> >>return f();
>> >>return f();
>> >> }
>> >> 
>> >> I prefer:
>> >> 
>> >> void g()
>> >> {
>> >>if (...) {
>> >>f();
>> >>return
>> >>}
>> >>f();
>> >> }
>> >> 
>> >> Does it bother you? For the former? For the latter? Update our style 
>> >> guide?
>> >> 
>> >> Opinions, please.
>> >> 
>> >> Dan
>> >> ___
>> >> webkit-dev mailing list
>> >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > ___
>> > webkit-dev mailing list
>> > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>> > 
>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org 
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev 
>> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Chris Dumez]

Same here, I used it in PSON code with completion handlers. I liked the more 
concise code but I also do not feel strongly about it.

The extra return line often would have meant adding curly brackets for if 
statements leading to early returns.

Chris Dumez

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Zalan Bujtas  wrote:
> 
> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more compact 
> code.
> (I don't feel too strongly about it though)
> 
> Alan.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:31 PM Alex Christensen  
>> wrote:
>> If you search for “return completionHandler” in WebKit you will find over a 
>> hundred instances.  Most if not all of them return void.  It means call the 
>> completion handler and return.  I probably wrote most of them and obviously 
>> think it’s a fabulous idiom.
>> 
>> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 2:32 PM, Geoffrey Garen  wrote:
>> > 
>> > FWIW, I’ve always felt conflicted about this case.
>> > 
>> > I very much prefer early return to if/else chains.
>> > 
>> > However, “return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.
>> > 
>> > So, I can’t use my preferred style in functions that return void. Boo. 
>> > 
>> > Geoff
>> > 
>> >> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Hi all,
>> >> 
>> >> Something bothers me about code like:
>> >> 
>> >> void f();
>> >> void g()
>> >> {
>> >>if (...)
>> >>return f();
>> >>return f();
>> >> }
>> >> 
>> >> I prefer:
>> >> 
>> >> void g()
>> >> {
>> >>if (...) {
>> >>f();
>> >>return
>> >>}
>> >>f();
>> >> }
>> >> 
>> >> Does it bother you? For the former? For the latter? Update our style 
>> >> guide?
>> >> 
>> >> Opinions, please.
>> >> 
>> >> Dan
>> >> ___
>> >> webkit-dev mailing list
>> >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>> > 
>> > ___
>> > webkit-dev mailing list
>> > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>> 
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Zalan Bujtas]

I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more
compact code.
(I don't feel too strongly about it though)

Alan.


On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 7:31 PM Alex Christensen 
wrote:

> If you search for “return completionHandler” in WebKit you will find over
> a hundred instances.  Most if not all of them return void.  It means call
> the completion handler and return.  I probably wrote most of them and
> obviously think it’s a fabulous idiom.
>
> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 2:32 PM, Geoffrey Garen  wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, I’ve always felt conflicted about this case.
> >
> > I very much prefer early return to if/else chains.
> >
> > However, “return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.
> >
> > So, I can’t use my preferred style in functions that return void. Boo.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> >> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Something bothers me about code like:
> >>
> >> void f();
> >> void g()
> >> {
> >>if (...)
> >>return f();
> >>return f();
> >> }
> >>
> >> I prefer:
> >>
> >> void g()
> >> {
> >>if (...) {
> >>f();
> >>return
> >>}
> >>f();
> >> }
> >>
> >> Does it bother you? For the former? For the latter? Update our style
> guide?
> >>
> >> Opinions, please.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >> ___
> >> webkit-dev mailing list
> >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> >
> > ___
> > webkit-dev mailing list
> > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
>
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Alex Christensen]

If you search for “return completionHandler” in WebKit you will find over a 
hundred instances.  Most if not all of them return void.  It means call the 
completion handler and return.  I probably wrote most of them and obviously 
think it’s a fabulous idiom.

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 2:32 PM, Geoffrey Garen  wrote:
> 
> FWIW, I’ve always felt conflicted about this case.
> 
> I very much prefer early return to if/else chains.
> 
> However, “return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.
> 
> So, I can’t use my preferred style in functions that return void. Boo. 
> 
> Geoff
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Something bothers me about code like:
>> 
>> void f();
>> void g()
>> {
>>if (...)
>>return f();
>>return f();
>> }
>> 
>> I prefer:
>> 
>> void g()
>> {
>>if (...) {
>>f();
>>return
>>}
>>f();
>> }
>> 
>> Does it bother you? For the former? For the latter? Update our style guide?
>> 
>> Opinions, please.
>> 
>> Dan
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Geoffrey Garen]

FWIW, I’ve always felt conflicted about this case.

I very much prefer early return to if/else chains.

However, “return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.

So, I can’t use my preferred style in functions that return void. Boo. 

Geoff

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Something bothers me about code like:
> 
> void f();
> void g()
> {
> if (...)
> return f();
> return f();
> }
> 
> I prefer:
> 
> void g()
> {
> if (...) {
> f();
> return
> }
> f();
> }
> 
> Does it bother you? For the former? For the latter? Update our style guide?
> 
> Opinions, please.
> 
> Dan
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Saam Barati]

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:53 PM, Tim Horton  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Something bothers me about code like:
>> 
>> void f();
>> void g()
>> {
>>if (...)
>>return f();
>>return f();
>> }
> 
> ⸘do people do this‽
I've definitely done this in JSC. I don't think it's super common, but I've 
also seen code in JSC not written by me that also does this.

- Saam

> 
>> I prefer:
>> 
>> void g()
>> {
>>if (...) {
>>f();
>>return
>>}
>>f();
>> }
>> 
>> Does it bother you? For the former? For the latter? Update our style guide?
> 
> +1 to a style guide update
> 
>> Opinions, please.
>> 
>> Dan
>> ___
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
> 
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Ryosuke Niwa]

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 12:53 PM Tim Horton  wrote:

>
>
> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Something bothers me about code like:
> >
> > void f();
> > void g()
> > {
> > if (...)
> > return f();
> > return f();
> > }
>
> ⸘do people do this‽
>

I much prefer doing this in my own code but stay away from it in WebKit
because we tend to have a separate return.

> I prefer:
> >
> > void g()
> > {
> > if (...) {
> > f();
> > return
> > }
> > f();
> > }
> >
> > Does it bother you? For the former? For the latter? Update our style
> guide?
>
> +1 to a style guide update
>

Yeah, we might as well as codify it in the style guideline for clarity.

- R. Niwa
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] Code Style: Opinion on returning void

[Tim Horton]

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Something bothers me about code like:
> 
> void f();
> void g()
> {
> if (...)
> return f();
> return f();
> }

⸘do people do this‽

> I prefer:
> 
> void g()
> {
> if (...) {
> f();
> return
> }
> f();
> }
> 
> Does it bother you? For the former? For the latter? Update our style guide?

+1 to a style guide update

> Opinions, please.
> 
> Dan
> ___
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev