From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:50778 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754949AbXEBJdg (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2007 05:33:36 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: References: <20061127165138.GA2991@lst.de> <20070430040213.BF9901801A4@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20070430091121.GC31397@infradead.org> <20070430100917.439ebfc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1178028973.2875.78.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <9185.1178035627@redhat.com> Subject: Re: condingstyle, was Re: utrace comments Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 10:32:51 +0100 Message-ID: <24844.1178098371@redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." , David Woodhouse , Geert Uytterhoeven , Satyam Sharma , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Roland McGrath , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Not lining up with the code following the if statement is also > a plus. Because it clearly delineates the conditions from the code. But the condition doesn't line up with the code: if (veryverylengthycondition1 && smallcond2 && (conditionnumber3a || condition3b)) { this_is_some_code(); this_is_some_more_code(); } Personally, for complicated conditions like this, I prefer: if (veryverylengthycondition1 && smallcond2 && (conditionnumber3a || condition3b) ) { this_is_some_code(); this_is_some_more_code(); } But that seems to offend Andrew for some reason (or was it Christoph? or both?). David