Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:13:39 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) Message-ID: <2211.917597619@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:59:14 PST." <6892.917596754@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <6892.917596754@zippy.cdrom.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" writes:
>> style(9) is not KNF, and never was intended to be. It's a FreeBSD style
>> guide that bears similarity to KNF because that's what it used as a
>> starting point.
>
>I think we can safely presume that Bruce has been overruled on this
>one. If the collective definition is different than his, and it seems
>to be, then the collective definition prevails. I very much enjoy the
>work Bruce does in keeping us honest in various ways, but I don't
>recall ever handing him the keys to the city and carte blanche over
>all commits. :-)
I also value what Bruce is doing (very much so!), but I tend to
agree with Jordan here, style(9) needs to be a little bit more
tolerant than KNF.
On the other hand style(9) should still firmly outlaw stuff like:
/* wait 10 ms */
if (((error = tsleep((caddr_t)dev, PPBPRI | PCATCH,
"ppbpoll", hz/100)) != EWOULDBLOCK) != 0) {
return (error);
}
(The identity of the guilty party is known to the CVS repository)
My two personal problems with style(9) are the same which many
others have been complaining about: more tolerant of {} and ()
added for readability.
It would also be nice if somebody whould coerse ident to DTRT.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2211.917597619>