Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 12:32:44 -0800 From: Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> To: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> Cc: src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r327354 - head/sys/vm Message-ID: <CAG6CVpVuXUcPCX81Nv9XujRVw8psxpLSLRfG9T20w6sr4j6=PA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <601ee1a2-8f4e-518d-4c86-89871cd652af@vangyzen.net> References: <201712291905.vBTJ57gI072871@repo.freebsd.org> <20180117224054.GO8113@FreeBSD.org> <601ee1a2-8f4e-518d-4c86-89871cd652af@vangyzen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> wrote: > On 01/17/2018 16:40, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >> Yeah, style is sacred, but is there a single person on Earth who would >> not agree that moving variables from smaller blocks to function block >> reduces readability of the code? > > I agree that it reduces the readability. Not only that, it also > encourages real bugs by allowing access to the variable when it does not > make sense. I think the right way to propose this kind of policy change is to get agreement on how style(9) should be modified =E2=80=94 not arbitrarily go against style(9) in some files. The proposed change may be somewhat contentious and it might be a good exercise to go through the FreeBSD Community Process. I might separate these two concerns: 1. Allowing local / block scoped variables 2. Allowing C99 for loop initial declarations But I could see the argument that (2) is just a boring subset of (1). Thanks, Conrad
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG6CVpVuXUcPCX81Nv9XujRVw8psxpLSLRfG9T20w6sr4j6=PA>