From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 3 16:28:03 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6573106566B; Sun, 3 May 2009 16:28:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68FFF8FC2C; Sun, 3 May 2009 16:28:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n43GOikI039151; Sun, 3 May 2009 10:24:44 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 10:24:44 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20090503.102444.1683323216.imp@bsdimp.com> To: christoph.mallon@gmx.de From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <49FD4391.9070605@gmx.de> References: <49FCAFA2.60603@gmx.de> <20090502.151931.1396014860.imp@bsdimp.com> <49FD4391.9070605@gmx.de> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, rdivacky@FreeBSD.org, ed@FreeBSD.org, dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie, julian@elischer.org Subject: Re: C99: Suggestions for style(9) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 16:28:04 -0000 In message: <49FD4391.9070605@gmx.de> Christoph Mallon writes: : M. Warner Losh schrieb: : > In message: <49FCAFA2.60603@gmx.de> : > Christoph Mallon writes: : > : Julian Elischer schrieb: : > : >> Christoph Mallon wrote: : > : >>>> K&R code should be changed as part of related changes if possible. : > : >>>> A sweep to change a whole file is probably also ok. : > : >>>> changing them one at a time is probably not ok. : > : >>> : > : >>> But this is what actually is practiced. : > : >>> You still did not answer my question: Do you agree to remove the : > : >>> clause so no new old style declarations may be added? : > : > : > : > I think a new clause should be added specifying what should happen : > : > and replacing the old clause. : > : : > : This is not sensible. style(9) says right at the start that it "[...] : > : specifies the preferred style for kernel source files [...]". The : > : preferred style would be to use ANSI function declarations - what else : > : is there to say? There is no point in adding more when less is sufficient. : > : > Actually, in a style guide, there is a point. : > : > Adding language that says we're actively removing K&R-style : > declarations and definitions reinforces this point and explains to : > people what's going on when they see this in the tree today. : : This just overcomplicates things. "removing old style definitions" is : not the preferred style, but "using prototyped definitions" is. Old : style definitions should not be added anymore, so just remove the : clause, which allows it currently. Adding even more about old style : definitions is counterproductive - I cannot support this. What to do, : when you are seeing an old style definition is clear: Don't Panic! I think you are wrong, and I think your failure to take constructive criticism is alienating a lot of people that would otherwise support at least part of what you are trying to do. I know I've had it enough. Warner