| To: | "chas williams (contractor)" <chas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: CodingStyle: while ((a=b)) |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:25:04 -0700 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, shemminger@xxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <200406270120.i5R1KJiN010390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040626234221.GB12761@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200406270120.i5R1KJiN010390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 09:20:20PM -0400, chas williams (contractor) wrote:
> adding the != does not make the conditional clearer to me. in fact
> it just make it harder to read.
so how about we stop merging these particular 'sparse cleanups' until
there is a consensus on how things should be done?
I'm no saying everyone should agree with me (even though you should)
just that consistency is good.
> however, it probably not a good idea to do assignments in places
> where someone might not expect to see them.
I'm not sure this has ever been a problem in the past has it?
Consider something like:
while(*a++ = *b++);
I don't see how that's vague or ugly, and rewriting is just making it
worse IMO.
--cw
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: CodingStyle: while ((a=b)), chas williams (contractor) |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: CodingStyle: while ((a=b)), chas williams (contractor) |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: CodingStyle: while ((a=b)), chas williams (contractor) |
| Next by Thread: | Re: CodingStyle: while ((a=b)), chas williams (contractor) |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |