Re: [PATCH/v2] CodingStyle updates

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:07:17 +0100 Pavel Machek wrote:

> On Fri 2006-12-15 08:52:22, Scott Preece wrote:
> > On 12/15/06, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> > >Hi!
> > >
> > >> Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >> >> From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
> > >> >> +Use one space around (on each side of) most binary and ternary 
> > >operators,
> > >> >> +such as any of these:
> > >> >> +  =  +  -  <  >  *  /  %  |  &  ^  <=  >=  ==  !=  ?  :
> > >> >
> > >> > Actually, this should not be hard rule. We want to allow
> > >> >
> > >> >     j = 3*i + l<<2;
> > >>
> > >> Which would be very misleading. This expression evaluates to
> > >>
> > >>       j = (((3 * i) + l) << 2);
> > >>
> > >> Binary + precedes <<.
> > >
> > >Aha, okay. So this one should be written as
> > >
> > >        j = 3*i+l << 2;
> > >
> > >(Well, parenthesses should really be used. Anyway, sometimes grouping
> > >around operator is useful, even if I made mistake demonstrating that.
> > ---
> > 
> > I think the mistake illuminates why parentheses should be the rule. If
> > you're thinking about using spacing to convey grouping, use
> > parentheses instead...
> 
> Not in simple cases.
> 
> 	3*i + 2*j should be writen like that. Not like
> 	(3 * i) + (2 * j)

I would just write it as:
	3 * i + 2 * j

---
~Randy