From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268275AbUHQO1J (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:27:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268258AbUHQO1I (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:27:08 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]:24808 "EHLO sccrmhc11.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268269AbUHQOYQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:24:16 -0400 Subject: Re: Coding style: do_this(a,b) vs. do_this(a, b) From: Albert Cahalan To: linux-kernel mailing list Cc: pavel@ucw.cz Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1092743463.5759.1403.camel@cube> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 17 Aug 2004 07:51:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Coding style document is not consistent with > itself on whether there should be space after > ","... This makes it standartize on ", " option. You can read it both ways, right? It's easy. I can't even see the difference unless I'm looking for it. We don't need any more bureaucracy. do_this(a,b); do_this(a, b); do_this (a,b); do_this (a, b); I can read them all. I might notice the space in front of the '(', but I might not. Even putting a space in front of the ';' isn't unreadable. People will pass laws until they are choked off, unable to move without being in violation of some silly little thing.