From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 2 16:51:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C47E16A420; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:51:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cperciva@freebsd.org) Received: from pd3mo1so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A6743D55; Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:51:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cperciva@freebsd.org) Received: from pd3mr1so.prod.shaw.ca (pd3mr1so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.177]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IVI00CC0ET81RB0@l-daemon>; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:51:08 -0700 (MST) Received: from pn2ml9so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.7]) by pd3mr1so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IVI00EEIET8E2G0@pd3mr1so.prod.shaw.ca>; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:51:08 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.168.0.60] ([24.82.18.31]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IVI003VNET7T861@l-daemon>; Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:51:08 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:50:53 -0800 From: Colin Percival In-reply-to: <20060302163633.H77029@fledge.watson.org> To: Robert Watson Message-id: <4407226D.3050901@freebsd.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 References: <20060302105229.P83093@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20060302163633.H77029@fledge.watson.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060112) Cc: Dmitry Pryanishnikov , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: style(9) question X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:51:10 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > I can't really think of a good reason > for return (foo) over return foo I'm not sure if this qualifies as a *good* reason, but writing "return (foo)" is more consistent with other keyword usage: "if (foo)", "for (foo)", "while (foo)", "switch (foo)". Colin Percival