Re: Lindent fixed to match reality

David Weinehall
2004-01-29T22:55:21Z

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 11:37:30PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:15:56PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > > b) (no -bs) "sizeof(foo)" rather than "sizeof (foo)"
> >
> > I can't really see the logic in this, though I know a lot of people do
> > it. I try to stay consistent, thus I do:
> >
> > if ()
> > for ()
> > case ()
> > while ()
> > sizeof ()
> > typeof ()
> >
> > since they're all parts of the language, rather than
> > functions/macros or invocations of such.
>
> As you say, this is religion. Secondly, there need not be any logic.
> But thirdly, if you insist: The first four are about flow of control.
> We all agree they have spaces - it is Linux kernel standard.
>
> On the other hand, sizeof is an arithmetical expression, often part
> of larger expressions. Now expressions like
> sizeof (*foo)+1
> might be confusing, and
> sizeof(*foo) + 1
> shows more clearly what the parsing is.

You should at least compare apples to apples, that is:

sizeof (*foo) + 1

vs

sizeof(*foo) + 1

But I guess that was just a typo? Of course, since the ()'s are useless
here anyway, and doesn't really bring any added bonus, we end up with

sizeof *foo + 1

vs

sizeof*foo + 1

and I'd say the latter looks rather confusing, if not for anything else
because

sizeoffoo

would be invalid code, while

sizeof foo

is perfectly valid.

This is the same as

return *foo;

vs

return*foo;

I personally regard the former to be preferable, but it's it's a
preference, not a something I'd die over.

Regards: David
--
/) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/