Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 20:11:50 +0200 (EET) From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: style(9) question Message-ID: <20060302200303.N46260@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> In-Reply-To: <20060302163633.H77029@fledge.watson.org> References: <20060302105229.P83093@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <20060302163633.H77029@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Robert Watson wrote: >> Values in return statements should be enclosed in parentheses. >> >> What's the rationale of this? From time to time I see small commits just >> changing "return foo;" -> "return (foo);". I think the first form is quite >> natural and not ambiguous. Shouldn't we remove this advise from style(9)? > > Regarding the contents of style(9) -- generally, we try hard not to change > the style guide, as style proves to be a rather contentious topic, as it is > typically guided much more by opinion and taste than function. Often, > ambiguities in the style guide are resolved by looking at what "most" cases > in the kernel tree currently do, then documenting that as the right way to do > it. I can't really think of a good reason for return (foo) over return foo, > but changing it will just make a bunch of code that previously conformed to > the style guide cease to do so, which probably doesn't really improve matters > :-). No, I don't propose to recommend "return foo;" over "return (foo);". But how about removing this advise completely, making those forms equally conformant? Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060302200303.N46260>