On 10/13/2014 10:08 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 10/13/2014 07:27 PM, Shyam wrote:
On 10/13/2014 08:01 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
hi,
Why are we moving away from this coding style?:
if (x) {
/*code*/
} else {
/* code */
}
This patch (in master) introduces the same and explains why,
commit 0a8371bdfdd88e662d09def717cc0b822feb64e8
Author: Jeff Darcy <jdarcy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Sep 29 17:27:14 2014 -0400
extras: reverse test for '}' vs. following 'else' placement
The two-line form "}\nelse {" has been more common than the one-line
form "} else {" in our code for years, and IMO for good reason (see
the comment in the diff).
Will there be any objections to allow the previous way of writing this
if/else block? I just don't want to get any errors in 'check-formatting'
when I write the old way for this.
May be we can change it to warning?
I am going to state my experience/expectation :)
I actually got this _error_ when submitting a patch, and thought to
myself "isn't the one-line form the right one?" then went to see why
this check was in place and read the above. Going by the reason in the
patch, I just adapted myself.
Now, coming to _allowing_ both forms with a warning, my personal call is
_no_, we should allow one form so that the code is readable and there is
little to no confusion for others on which form to use. So I would say
no to your proposal.
Shyam
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
