C99: Suggestions for style(9)
christoph.mallon at gmx.de
Sun May 3 07:11:17 UTC 2009
M. Warner Losh schrieb:
> In message: <49FCAFA2.60603 at gmx.de>
> Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon at gmx.de> writes:
> : Julian Elischer schrieb:
> : >> Christoph Mallon wrote:
> : >>>> K&R code should be changed as part of related changes if possible.
> : >>>> A sweep to change a whole file is probably also ok.
> : >>>> changing them one at a time is probably not ok.
> : >>>
> : >>> But this is what actually is practiced.
> : >>> You still did not answer my question: Do you agree to remove the
> : >>> clause so no new old style declarations may be added?
> : >
> : > I think a new clause should be added specifying what should happen
> : > and replacing the old clause.
> : This is not sensible. style(9) says right at the start that it "[...]
> : specifies the preferred style for kernel source files [...]". The
> : preferred style would be to use ANSI function declarations - what else
> : is there to say? There is no point in adding more when less is sufficient.
> Actually, in a style guide, there is a point.
> Adding language that says we're actively removing K&R-style
> declarations and definitions reinforces this point and explains to
> people what's going on when they see this in the tree today.
This just overcomplicates things. "removing old style definitions" is
not the preferred style, but "using prototyped definitions" is. Old
style definitions should not be added anymore, so just remove the
clause, which allows it currently. Adding even more about old style
definitions is counterproductive - I cannot support this. What to do,
when you are seeing an old style definition is clear: Don't Panic!
More information about the freebsd-hackers