Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 11:58:37 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: davidg@root.com Cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, terry@lambert.org, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: why is this not a bug in namei? Message-ID: <199509191858.LAA10358@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199509190636.XAA03898@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Sep 18, 95 11:36:03 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There are a few formatting issues which I probably will fix. The problem > I'm having is basically that we have a specific style that we are trying to > adhere to (surely everone can understand the readability advantages of a > single coding style - KNF), and Terry wants to add a few hundred gotos while > he rewrites everything. Yuck. > I really wish that people would spend more time on fixing real problems > with the source code and not just changing it to fit their own non-KNF style. > It's only going to result in a lot more work later when someone has to go > back and "fix" all of it. KNF is why we have GNU Indent. If you don't like goto's, fine, you keep the multiple deallocations and lock/unlock's code synchronized after removing them. The goto's aren't an issue of KNF or not KNF. That's more where I put my parenthesis. GNU Indent should be part of CVS checking if you're that religious. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509191858.LAA10358>