Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:30:12 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: grog@FreeBSD.org, bde@zeta.org.au, julian@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/fsck_ffs pass5.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211252225370.46897-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20021125.231623.131888344.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote: > Not when it is this simple: > > + if ((cg->cg_rotor >= 0) && (cg->cg_rotor < newcg->cg_ndblk)) It's a judgement call and I think that the parens make it more readable. > > Anybody that has half a 'C' clue know that those aren't needed. The > times they are needed is when they are more complex. That was also > part of the consensus. > > Eg, The above should be written like: > + if (cg->cg_rotor >= 0 && cg->cg_rotor < newcg->cg_ndblk) > which is clearer, but something like I don't think it is clearer. > > if (a == x && b == y || c == z) > > should be written as > > if (a == x && (b == y || c == z)) > > since that is clearer and likely what was intended. > > That was the consensus. When it is needed for clarity. Many people > that learned pascal originally keep the extra parens because they are > needed there. However, there's a huge body of code that writes the > above code in the second way I sighted, not the first. I disagree and I doubt that style(9) can force it one way or the other. I have seen 3 sources of this patch (done independently). (Including my own) All 3 had the parens. I think it makes it more readable. And you don't. julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0211252225370.46897-100000>