From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fallback-mx.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.17]:55388 "EHLO hirscho.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423385AbXD3XKF (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:10:05 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de (einhorn.in-berlin.de [192.109.42.8]) by fallback-mx.in-berlin.de (8.13.6/8.13.6/Debian-1) with ESMTP id l3UMP7vl009422 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 00:25:07 +0200 Message-ID: <46366B36.70906@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 00:18:30 +0200 From: Stefan Richter MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: condingstyle, was Re: utrace comments References: <20061127165138.GA2991@lst.de> <20070430040213.BF9901801A4@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20070430091121.GC31397@infradead.org> <20070430100917.439ebfc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Satyam Sharma Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Roland McGrath , Christoph Hellwig , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Satyam Sharma wrote: [...] > The rationale is to make the operator prominent and thus make > the structure of a complex multi-line compound conditional expression more > readable and obvious at first glance itself. For example, consider: > > if (veryverylengthycondition1 && > smallcond2 && > (conditionnumber3a || > condition3b)) { > ... > } > > versus > > if (veryverylengthycondition1 > && smallcond2 > && (conditionnumber3a > || condition3b)) { > ... > } > > ? > > Latter wins, doesn't it? I find the latter more sensible too, even though I used the former myself until recently (because I didn't knew better). -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=-= ----= http://arcgraph.de/sr/