
htejun at gmail
May 16, 2006, 8:57 AM
Post #6 of 13
(792 views)
Permalink
|
Jeff Garzik wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: >> Is this agreed upon? I tend to omit almost all unnecessary (by operator >> precedence) parenthesis, so in new EH and all other stuff, the "a && b & >> c" sort of lines are abundant. If this is something that's agreed upon, >> I can do a clean sweep over those. > > > More parens == easier to review. So > a && b & c > should be > a && (b & c) Understood. Usually, my rule is something like doing the least maximizes consistency (style-wise) thus increasing readability in the end, but rules usually suck, don't they? What fits the most eyes is the best, I guess. > to clearly delineate the separate expressions to the human eye, and also > make it clear to the reader that the '&' is intended, and not a typo > that should have been '&&'. > > Anytime you see a long string of 'if' conditions, and the operators > vary, add parents for readability. > Yeap, will do, from now on. -- tejun - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|