C99: Suggestions for style(9)

M. Warner Losh imp at bsdimp.com
Sun May 3 16:28:04 UTC 2009


In message: <49FD4391.9070605 at gmx.de>
            Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon at gmx.de> writes:
: 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!

I think you are wrong, and I think your failure to take constructive
criticism is alienating a lot of people that would otherwise support
at least part of what you are trying to do.  I know I've had it
enough.

Warner


More information about the freebsd-hackers mailing list