linux-kernel - Re: condingstyle, was Re: utrace comments

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46366B36.70906@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date:	Tue, 01 May 2007 00:18:30 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: condingstyle, was Re: utrace comments

Satyam Sharma wrote:
[...]
> The rationale is to make the operator prominent and thus make
> the structure of a complex multi-line compound conditional expression more
> readable and obvious at first glance itself. For example, consider:
> 
>     if (veryverylengthycondition1 &&
>         smallcond2 &&
>         (conditionnumber3a ||
>         condition3b)) {
>         ...
>     }
> 
> versus
> 
>     if (veryverylengthycondition1
>         && smallcond2
>         && (conditionnumber3a
>             || condition3b)) {
>         ...
>     }
> 
> ?
> 
> Latter wins, doesn't it?

I find the latter more sensible too, even though I used the former
myself until recently (because I didn't knew better).
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= ----=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/