svn commit: r362217 - head/stand/common

[Warner Losh]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:33 PM Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 19:34 +0200, Kristof Provost wrote:
> > On 16 Jun 2020, at 19:11, Ed Maste wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 13:01, Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As much as I prefer doing it this way, style(9) doesn't allow for
> > > > variable declarations inside a for() statement (or even inside a
> > > > local
> > > > block, which is just too 1980s for me, but it is still our standard).
> > >
> > > Perhaps it's time to update style(9) to at least permit these uses, as
> > > we've done with the blank line at the beginning of functions with no
> > > local variables, and with braces around single-line bodies.
> >
> > We have 431 instances of `for (int i` in sys alone. It’s not so much a
> > question of allowing it as acknowledging reality at this point.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Kristof
>
> Hmm, so we do.  If you weed out sys/contrib, and device drivers
> contributed by vendors, the number is a lot smaller, but still big
> enough that we should just change the rules I think.
>

We should definitely just change the rules. There's no point in
prohibiting it. Contributors have already voted with their feet

diff --git a/share/man/man9/style.9 b/share/man/man9/style.9
index 4e801bbcbe70..fd23d573eb00 100644
--- a/share/man/man9/style.9
+++ b/share/man/man9/style.9
@@ -592,8 +592,6 @@ not
 Parts of a
 .Ic for
 loop may be left empty.
-Do not put declarations
-inside blocks unless the routine is unusually complicated.
 .Bd -literal
        for (; cnt < 15; cnt++) {
                stmt1;

Although the block doesn't start until { so int i; in the commit
technically doesn't violate this rule. We violate it in dozens of other
ways than this.

Warner