From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jan 31 11:35:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA10070 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:35:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from server.noc.demon.net (server.noc.demon.net [193.195.224.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA10047 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:35:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fanf@demon.net) Received: by server.noc.demon.net; id TAA10311; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:35:02 GMT Received: from fanf.noc.demon.net(195.11.55.83) by inside.noc.demon.net via smap (3.2) id xmab10309; Sun, 31 Jan 99 19:34:55 GMT Received: from fanf by fanf.noc.demon.net with local (Exim 1.73 #2) id 1072dy-0004z3-00; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:34:54 +0000 To: current@FreeBSD.ORG From: Tony Finch Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <92584.917604304@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Message-Id: Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:34:54 +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Doug Rabson wrote: >On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: >> >> The reason I'm interested in this (now tiresome) thread is that I'd much >> rather have to read >> >> /* >> * Bail out if the time left to next transaction is less than >> * the duration of the previous transaction. >> */ >> if (t % u - n % u < d % u) { >> >> than >> >> if (((t % u) - (n % u)) < (d % u)) { > >This is a strawman. The original expression is perfectly fine (by my >rules). One could make a case for: > > if ((t % u) - (n % u) < d % u) Am I a heretic for suggesting this? if (t%u - n%u < d%u) Grouping without brackets! Tony. -- f.a.n.finch dot@dotat.at fanf@demon.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message