From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58162) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEiUv-0005P3-6V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:40:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEiUu-00071E-8F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:40:13 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64188) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QEiUt-000712-V5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:40:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4DB6CB03.4060407@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:39:15 +0200 From: Jes Sorensen MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1303138953-1334-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1303138953-1334-16-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4DAFEFEA.9020102@redhat.com> <4DB02F5D.7020204@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1303464235.20064.1.camel@corwyn> <4DB16BBC.1@redhat.com> <1303734477.2676.2.camel@corwyn> In-Reply-To: <1303734477.2676.2.camel@corwyn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC][PATCH v2 15/17] guest agent: qemu-ga daemon List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: ian.molton@collabora.co.uk Cc: aliguori@linux.vnet.ibm.com, agl@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Michael Roth , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 04/25/11 14:27, Ian Molton wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 13:51 +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> Hiding things you miss when reading the code, it's a classic for >> people to do if(foo) bleh(); on the same line, and whoever reads >> the code will expect the action on the next line, especially if foo >> is a long complex statement. >> >> It's one of these 'just don't do it, it bites you in the end' things. > > Meh. I dont see it that way... > > Sure, if it was one line out of 20 written that way, it would be weird, > but as is, its just part of a block of identical lines. It is a matter of consistency, we allow it in one place, we suddenly have it all over. The moment someone wants to add a slightly more complex case to such a switch statement it is all down the drain. It is way better to stay consistent across the board. > I dont really see a parallel with the if() statement either since the > condition in the switch() case isnt on the same line as such. I must > admit that I only write one-liner if statements if the condition is > short though. Writing one-liner if() statements is inherently broken, or you could call it the Perl syndrome. Write-once, read-never..... Jes