From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Keeping Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fix $((...)) coding style Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:06:09 +0000 Message-ID: <20160204140609.GH29880@serenity.lan> References: <20160204121437.GF29880@serenity.lan> <20160204130111.GG29880@serenity.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Elia Pinto To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 04 15:07:10 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aRKYv-0006jh-Ga for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:07:09 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755811AbcBDOHD (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:07:03 -0500 Received: from jackal.aluminati.org ([72.9.247.210]:56769 "EHLO jackal.aluminati.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752885AbcBDOHC (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:07:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jackal.aluminati.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BDD866034; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:06:57 +0000 (GMT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at serval.aluminati.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-9999 required=6.31 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=no Received: from jackal.aluminati.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (jackal.aluminati.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id gyg4XgeTHwDK; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:06:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from serenity.lan (banza.aluminati.org [10.0.7.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jackal.aluminati.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 87A0C86600D; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:06:10 +0000 (GMT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 02:13:47PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, John Keeping wrote: > > > Although I don't think the historic context is useful in deciding which > > direction to go in the future. > > Being a maintainer, I find that argument particularly hard to defend. I worded that badly, what I wanted to say is that how we got here is less interesting than where we are. From a quick bit of grep'ing it looks to me like where we are is in favour of adding spaces around binary operators inside $(( )) constructs based on the majority of the uses in the code as it currently stands. > But sure, you go ahead and prepare a patch series that turns everything > around, adding spaces around those operators. > > Whatever the outcome, the inconsistency must be fixed. I disagree. Unless there are other changes in the same area, the noise isn't worth it. However, I do think we need to agree on a policy so that new code can be consistent. This should then be documented in CodingGuidelines.