Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 15:31:33 +0300 From: Danny Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> To: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, Ed Schouten <ed@freebsd.org>, Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, Warner Losh <imp@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: C99: Suggestions for style(9) Message-ID: <E1Lzrtu-0006cn-Pp@kabab.cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <20090501112239.GA23199@alchemy.franken.de> References: <49F4070C.2000108@gmx.de> <20090501112239.GA23199@alchemy.franken.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 09:02:36AM +0200, Christoph Mallon wrote:
> >
> > return with parentheses:
> > Removed, because it does not improve maintainability in any way. There
> > is no source for confusion here, so the rule even contradicts the rule,
> > which states not to use redundant parentheses. Maybe, decades ago it was
> > just a workaround for a broken compiler, which does not exist anymore.
>
> FYI, the idea behind this rule is said to be to able to use
> a macro return(), f.e. for debugging you then can do:
> #define return(x) do { \
> printf("returning from %s with %d\n", __func__, (x)); \
> return (x); \
> } while (0)
>
> Given the this is a nifty feature and parentheses around the
> return value don't hurt maintainability in any way IMO this
> rule should stay.
short version:
not nifty, dirty yes!
long version:
it's already quiet difficult to read the sources with so many MaCrOs roaming
around, but if you change if, return, then, else, switch etc, etc
to a macro invocation, there will be a slight discrepancy between
the undertsanding of the code and its running effect.
btw, what if x is a pointer?, or a quad? or a complex ...
my .02$
danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1Lzrtu-0006cn-Pp>