Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 10:40:43 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> 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: <49FC859B.20906@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200905021738.aa71693@walton.maths.tcd.ie> References: <200905021738.aa71693@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Malone wrote: > > As I said, the point of a style guide is consistency. Changing it > doesn't promote consistency, so there needs to be a good reason for > the change, rather than a good reason not to change. In my opinion, > there isn't a strong reason. Similarly for parens around return > values - there's nothing (substantial) wrong with either rule, so > they should probably be left as-is. Many of the previous changes to style(9) came from cases where the existing rules led to programmers increasing their chances of making errors, or people found themselves often misinterpreting code in the same way, over and over again. Changing them to bring them closer to someone's personal style has never been an acceptable reason. There is a barrier to entry that any change must overcome which is "It will decrease code consistency (by definition) so it it worth it?" . "parens on return statements is an example.. there are some posibilities as to what one can do with this, but I really do find that the parens are part of the style that I'd notice as inconsistent. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49FC859B.20906>