From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: "Hubbe, Allen" <Allen.Hubbe@emc.com>
Cc: "apw@canonical.com" <apw@canonical.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: CodingStyle parenthesis alignment: was: Re: align to open paren
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 14:06:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1429131997.2850.15.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40F65EF2B5E2254199711F58E3ACB84D781CD892@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 20:34 +0000, Hubbe, Allen wrote:
> Hello Andy, Joe,
Hello Allen.
As this is a discussion better suited for linux
development lists I've cc'd LKML and netdev.
> I would like to find the origin of the decision to align to the open
> paren in Linux.
Mostly it's a style decision shared by net/ and
drivers/net/ and a few other directories.
It's a checkpatch --strict only test so it's not on
by default except in net/ and drivers/net/.
> I found the commit where this was added a few years ago, d1fe9c0.
> The email thread just says the style should be that way, but not why
> or how the decision was made. The how and the why is what I'm after,
> since I have a critique of the chosen style.
>
> I realize there is a lot of code written using this stile, and
> changing it would be disruptive. I certainly would not ask for that.
>
> Indenting to the open paren might cause ambiguous indentation between
> the parenthesized expression and the next logical thing. In the
> following, next_thing aligns to the same column as baz, even though
> baz is part of the condition expression, and next_thing is the
> continued statement.
>
> = if (foo(bar,
> = baz))
> = next_thing();
>
> It would be necessary to reindent to maintain style, even though the
> code of the next lines is the same. This has consequences like
> changing the blame, for instance. In the following, 4 + 5 is the bug,
> but whoever replaced the global with an instance variable gets the
> blame.
blame is overrated.
git blame -w ignores most of the whitespace noise.
> = global_variable = foo(bar,
> = baz(1 + 3),
> = baz(4 + 5) + 6);
> with
> = obj->var = foo(bar,
> = baz(1 + 3),
> = baz(4 + 5) + 6);
>
> I'm used to the default in many editors, which is to indent twice
> following each open paren, as opposed to once following each open
> brace or continued statement. It is a simpler rule for automatic
> formatting to implement. It also avoids mixing tabs and spaces, the
> spacing is unambiguous, and to maintain style, there is no need to
> re-indent lines following an edit if the position of the open paren
> changes.
>
> It's interesting to me that this style is only enforced by
> checkpatch.pl --strict. It is not in Documents/CodingStyle. That
> being the case, would it be acceptable to relax the rule in
> checkpatch.pl to accept either style? If not, well, I'll just accept
> the chosen style and fix my code.
I personally don't care much either way.
> If the following looks acceptable to you, I'll submit the patch to the
> list.
The patch most likely wouldn't be appropriate for
net/ and drivers/net/ where the developers seem to
strongly prefer alignment to open parenthesis.
Also I think the open parenthesis count isn't right
as it would ask for multiple indents for code like:
if ((foo(bar)) &&
(baz(bar))) {
I think checkpatch would now want:
if ((foo(bar)) &&
(baz(bar))) {
and the --fix option would be wrong too.
cheers, Joe
> Thanks,
> Allen
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index d124359..8e49125 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -1834,6 +1834,15 @@ sub pos_last_openparen {
> return length(expand_tabs(substr($line, 0, $last_openparen))) + 1;
> }
>
> +sub count_openparen {
> + my ($line) = @_;
> +
> + my $opens = $line =~ tr/\(/\(/;
> + my $closes = $line =~ tr/\)/\)/;
> +
> + return $opens - $closes;
> +}
> +
> sub process {
> my $filename = shift;
>
> @@ -2539,11 +2548,16 @@ sub process {
> " " x ($pos % 8);
> my $goodspaceindent = $oldindent . " " x $pos;
>
> + my $goodtwotabindent = $oldindent .
> + "\t\t" x count_openparen($rest);
> +
> if ($newindent ne $goodtabindent &&
> - $newindent ne $goodspaceindent) {
> + $newindent ne $goodspaceindent &&
> + $newindent ne $goodtwotabindent) {
>
> if (CHK("PARENTHESIS_ALIGNMENT",
> - "Alignment should match open parenthesis\n" . $hereprev) &&
> + "Alignment should match open parenthesis, " .
> + "or be twice indented for each open parenthesis\n" . $hereprev) &&
> $fix && $line =~ /^\+/) {
> $fixed[$fixlinenr] =~
> s/^\+[ \t]*/\+$goodtabindent/;
next parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-15 21:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <40F65EF2B5E2254199711F58E3ACB84D781CD892@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
2015-04-15 21:06 ` Joe Perches [this message]
2015-04-15 21:54 ` CodingStyle parenthesis alignment: was: Re: align to open paren Hubbe, Allen
2015-04-16 1:29 ` Joe Perches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1429131997.2850.15.camel@perches.com \
--to=joe@perches.com \
--cc=Allen.Hubbe@emc.com \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.