Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:27:32 +0000 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/rwall rwall.c Message-ID: <200203072227.g27MRWRV017994@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: <15495.59008.192220.654176@caddis.yogotech.com> ; from Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> "Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:15:28 MST." References: <15495.59008.192220.654176@caddis.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > void main(){printf("hello world\n");} > > > also produces correct code and runs, but creates problems during > > compiler and library upgrades. It his hard to read, and is > > unpredictable in silly ways. > > What problems (details)? Why it it hard to read? It is trivial to read > and understand. Who says printf is not a macro? What is the return value? void main() { printf("hello world\n"); } Is much easier to read, making the one liner "hard". (Trivial example, don't belabour this point). There is non-style(9) code in the tree that is much harder to read before it is style.9-ified. > > NO! I am not. If I wanted to do that, I'd do something dumbass like > > indent(1) all the code. > > It seems to me to be almost the same thing, but at least with indent, > bugs are introduced. :( I guess you mean "NOT introduced"? > *EVERYONE* likes well-written/safe code. Running it through lint and > fixing errors doesn't necessarily provide you with either feature. Huh? Fixing errors doesn't help make safe(r) code? M -- o Mark Murray \_ O.\_ Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn 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?200203072227.g27MRWRV017994>