Re: Possible false positive in checkpatch

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Krzysztof Halasa
Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 8:29 am

Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> writes:




I think checkpatch already has gone way too far with this (and not
only this).

"type *var" vs "type* var" - sure, the latter is worse and provokes
"type* var1, var2", but anything else is IMHO only annoying and,
actually, not important WRT readability at all.

For example I prefer "type* func()" - as it's a function returning
"a pointer to type" and not "a pointer to a function returning type"
(which "type *func()" may suggest). Yes, func is not a pointer, so why
write "*" next to it?
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Possible false positive in checkpatch, Alan Stern, (Tue Aug 12, 7:25 am)
Re: Possible false positive in checkpatch, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Aug 12, 8:29 am)
Re: Possible false positive in checkpatch, Andy Whitcroft, (Tue Aug 12, 10:18 am)
Re: Possible false positive in checkpatch, Krzysztof Halasa, (Tue Aug 12, 11:01 am)
Re: Possible false positive in checkpatch, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Aug 15, 2:58 pm)
Re: Possible false positive in checkpatch, Alan Stern, (Sat Aug 16, 8:26 am)