[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18086.41665.610756.139183@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:09:21 +1000
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@...ycom.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...ion.unipv.it>,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Geoff Levand <geoffrey.levand@...sony.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] ps3: Disk Storage Driver
Andy Whitcroft writes:
> Ok, this is something we need to decide on. Currently we only ask for
> consistent spacing on all the mathematic operators. This is mostly as
> we do see a large number of non-spaced uses in defines and the like.
>
> I am happy to expand these tests so they are always spaced on both sides
> style if that is the preference.
It depends very much on the context - on the precedence and relative
importance of one operator with respect to other operators and the
statement as a whole. In general I prefer spaces around binary
operators, but there are situations where not putting spaces around
some operators can enhance the readability of the statement as a
whole.
If checkpatch.pl starts whinging about operators without spaces that
will just be yet another reason not to use it IMHO.
Also, I prefer the style where the ? and : operators have a space
after them but not before them, rather than a space either side.
Paul.
-
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