From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/30] return statement cleanup - kill pointless parentheses (fwd) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:33:46 +0100 Message-ID: <20041221083345.GA1012@elf.ucw.cz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Brown, Len" Cc: ACPI mailing list , juhl-lkml-poRShpWsAiE@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Hi! > >Parenthesis around returns statements were driving me crazy for quite > >a long time -- return is not a function and I do not think it should > >look as one. Could we get this applied? > > K&R-2 says "Parentheses are often used around the expression, but they > are optional." Of course it is valid C, but return(((((-ENOMEM))))); would be valid C, too :-). It is also bad, because it makes return look like a function call. I'd like to at least get rid of return(a); form. return (a); is slightly less ugly. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/