Matthew Dillon <dil...@apollo.backplane.com> wrote:
>:style(9) should emphasize legibility and maintainability, rather than
>:minimizing the number of extraneous (from the compiler's perspective)
>:parenthesis.
>    As far as parenthesis go, it's irrelevant because -Wall pretty much
>    covers the most common mistakes.

I was thinking in terms of the parenthesis required as a result of the
operator precedences (from K&R), rather than gcc -Wall.

>   If your code compiles without generating
>    a warning, your parenthesization is in good shape.
Agreed.

>    Braces and indentation and other purely visual effects are a different
>    matter.
Agreed.  I think style(9) errs on the side of too few braces as well.
My preference is for braces whenever you exceed 1 physical line rather
than 1 statement. eg
        if (this &&
            that) {
                foo();
        }

        if (this) {
                if (that)
                        a = b;
                else
                        c = d;
        }


Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), gcc doesn't have an option to
warn you that your indentation doesn't doesn't match its parsing.
eg:
        if (a)
                if (b)
                        foo();
        else
                bar();
                baz();


It would be nice if style(9) documented the options to give indent(1)
to match the `approved' layout convections.  (This would reduce the
effort involved in importing large chunks of code).

Peter

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to