Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:10:59 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: cperciva@freebsd.org Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/cfe cfe_console.c Message-ID: <20080927.221059.-108809907.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <48DEFFDE.5020300@freebsd.org> References: <200809280333.m8S3XABp063809@repoman.freebsd.org> <48DEFFDE.5020300@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <48DEFFDE.5020300@freebsd.org>
Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> writes:
: Warner Losh wrote:
: > Change while (cond)\n\t\t; to while (cond)\n\t\tcontinue; since the
: > former more explicitly tells the compiler that you want an empty loop.
: > There are some lint programs that use this hint to avoid generating
: > warnings.
:
: In style(9) the example
: for (p = buf; *p != '\0'; ++p)
: ; /* nothing */
: is given, but I really like the explicit continue; enough so that I'm
: wondering if the example in style(9) should be changed to
: for (p = buf; *p != '\0'; ++p)
: continue;
: to encourage people to write that way (I hope I'm not the only person
: who simply never thought of adding the explicit continue?).
:
: Realizing that questions of style tend to provoke huge debates: Please
: send me your opinions off-list, and I'll only make this change if the
: emails I get are at least 75% in favour.
I think this is a good change.
I do it in my code because I got used to it when tools enforced it
years ago... I like it, but I'm sure others will differ.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080927.221059.-108809907.imp>