From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Mva0T-0008Ul-TN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:08:54 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Mva0O-0008Pt-Te
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:08:53 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39123 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Mva0O-0008PY-Lv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:08:48 -0400
Received: from mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.49]:23822)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <sdbrady@ntlworld.com>) id 1Mva0O-0001KK-4P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:08:48 -0400
Received: from aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35])
	by mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com
	(InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id
	<20091007170837.BZGJ17277.mtaout03-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:08:37 +0100
Received: from miranda.arrow ([213.107.24.213])
	by aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com
	(InterMail vG.2.02.00.01 201-2161-120-102-20060912) with ESMTP id
	<20091007170837.JKYM21638.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@miranda.arrow>
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:08:37 +0100
Received: from sdb by miranda.arrow with local (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <sdbrady@ntlworld.com>) id 1Mva1Q-0000Fk-RZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:09:53 +0100
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:09:52 +0100
From: Stuart Brady <sdbrady@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] CODING_STYLE: {} as in linux kernel
Message-ID: <20091007170952.GA938@miranda.arrow>
References: <20091006190115.GA4768@redhat.com> <4ACCA1EA.4090509@redhat.com>
	<4ACCABA0.8080001@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4ACCABA0.8080001@redhat.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 04:54:24PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:

> I somehow dislike the unneeded branches because it looks a bit 
> irritating to my eyes.

I felt the same way at first, but I've become used to them, now.

> They have advantages though.  Making patches more readable is one, as 
> kevin and the nice example above clearly points out ;)

Strictly, the example should be this:

-    if (a == 5)
+    if (a == 5) {
         printf("a was 5.\n");
-    else if (a == 6)
+    } else if (a == 6) {
         printf("a was 6.\n");
+        printf("multiply by 7 to get the answer.\n");
-    else
+    } else {
         printf("a was something else entirely.\n");
+    }

versus:

     if (a == 5) {
         printf("a was 5.\n");
     } else if (a == 6) {
         printf("a was 6.\n");
+        printf("multiply by 7 to get the answer.\n");
     } else {
         printf("a was something else entirely.\n");
     }

I know which one I prefer. :-)

Cheers,
-- 
Stuart Brady