[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070621191109.GA13853@cvg>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:11:09 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bracing the loop in kernel/softirq.c
[Jeremy Fitzhardinge - Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:52:25AM -0700]
> Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> On 20/06/07, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
>>> This trivial patch adds braces over a one-line
>>> loop. That makes code...well... little bit
>>> convenient for (possible) further modifications.
>>>
>> That's generally not done.
>>
>> It's even in Documentation/CodingStyle :
>>
>> "
>> Do not unnecessarily use braces where a single statement will do.
>>
>> if (condition)
>> action();
>> "
>
> I tend to see "do {} while()" as an exception to this. I find the
> construct is sufficiently rare that it helps to emphasize it a bit. For
> example if I'm scanning code and I see:
>
> while (foo != NULL);
>
> in the corner of my eye, I'm going to think "huh?". But:
>
> } while (foo != NULL);
>
> visually "parses" properly, regardless of how near or far the corresponding
> "do {" is.
>
> (And of course, its consistent with the super extra special while-while
> loop:
>
> while (foo != NULL) {
> foo = bar();
> piffle();
> } while (foo != NULL); // make sure we loop properly
>
> ;)
>
> J
>
Indeed, 'do-while' is a special case.
Btw, Jeremy, I'm always getting into rapture on 'while-while' loop ;)
Cyrill
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists