From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible false positive in checkpatch
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:29:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3d4kefe0x.fsf@maximus.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0808121017510.2509-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> (Alan Stern's message of "Tue\, 12 Aug 2008 10\:25\:08 -0400 \(EDT\)")
Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> writes:
> ERROR: space prohibited after that '*' (ctx:BxW)
> Certainly this is a rather uncommon code construction, but similar
> ones might occur elsewhere. To my eyes,
>
> (* (type *) ptr)
>
> looks better than
>
> (*(type *) ptr)
>
> or
>
> (*(type *)ptr)
>
> or even
>
> (*(type*)ptr)
>
> but of course this is a matter of opinion. Is there any strong feeling
> about this in the kernel community?
I think checkpatch already has gone way too far with this (and not
only this).
"type *var" vs "type* var" - sure, the latter is worse and provokes
"type* var1, var2", but anything else is IMHO only annoying and,
actually, not important WRT readability at all.
For example I prefer "type* func()" - as it's a function returning
"a pointer to type" and not "a pointer to a function returning type"
(which "type *func()" may suggest). Yes, func is not a pointer, so why
write "*" next to it?
--
Krzysztof Halasa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-12 15:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-12 14:25 Possible false positive in checkpatch Alan Stern
2008-08-12 15:29 ` Krzysztof Halasa [this message]
2008-08-12 17:18 ` Andy Whitcroft
2008-08-12 18:01 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2008-08-15 21:58 ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-08-16 15:26 ` Alan Stern
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3d4kefe0x.fsf@maximus.localdomain \
--to=khc@pm.waw.pl \
--cc=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=jschopp@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox