Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:27:32 +0000 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/rwall rwall.c Message-ID: <200203072227.g27MRWRV017994@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: <15495.59008.192220.654176@caddis.yogotech.com> ; from Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> "Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:15:28 MST." References: <15495.59008.192220.654176@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > void main(){printf("hello world\n");}
>
> > also produces correct code and runs, but creates problems during
> > compiler and library upgrades. It his hard to read, and is
> > unpredictable in silly ways.
>
> What problems (details)? Why it it hard to read? It is trivial to read
> and understand.
Who says printf is not a macro?
What is the return value?
void main()
{
printf("hello world\n");
}
Is much easier to read, making the one liner "hard". (Trivial example,
don't belabour this point). There is non-style(9) code in the tree that
is much harder to read before it is style.9-ified.
> > NO! I am not. If I wanted to do that, I'd do something dumbass like
> > indent(1) all the code.
>
> It seems to me to be almost the same thing, but at least with indent,
> bugs are introduced. :(
I guess you mean "NOT introduced"?
> *EVERYONE* likes well-written/safe code. Running it through lint and
> fixing errors doesn't necessarily provide you with either feature.
Huh?
Fixing errors doesn't help make safe(r) code?
M
--
o Mark Murray
\_
O.\_ Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200203072227.g27MRWRV017994>