On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:30:15 -0700 David Brownell wrote:

quoted text
> > > > Let's kill it, please.  (i.e., ACK)
> > > 
> > > But ... why?  What value could needless parens provide?
> >
> > Who says that needless parens could provide value?
> 
> Jean, which is why he submitted the patch.
> You, implicitly, by acking a patch saying those parens are bad.
> But not me ... I don't think this patch is merge-worthy.

Thanks for clearing that up.  Yes, you did have me confused.

Sure, if something is needless, it doesn't provide value.
So we disagree that some parens are needless.  OK.

quoted text
> > > "Yet Another Subtle And Hard To Fix Source Of Bloat" is
> > > not a plus.
> >
> > ISTM that we agree.
> 
> Evidently not, since removing it would promote such bloat.
> Explicitly removing disapproval is a form of approval...
> 
> 
> > > I'd kind of think a change like this should have some
> > > positive motivation.
> >
> > "Me, I agree that numbers in parens don't usually make sense for
> > kernel messages."
> >
> > It's too trivial to be included in CodingStyle.
> 
> So the reason to remove that guideline, and thereby encourage
> proliferation of needless parens, is ... that some OTHER way
> to get rid of them is working?

Andrew listed some cases where parens make sense.  He didn't say
(and I don't say) [oops, parens] that they always make sense,
but the statement in CodingStyle is too strict.  Sometimes they
make sense.

quoted text
> I would agree that line could be improved to say that messages
> should not be needlessly large.  Excess parens are one example;
> wordiness is another (including printing 8 bit fields as 0x%08x),
> and I'm sure there are more.

---
~Randy
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/