Mike Isely wrote:

quoted text
>> If you need this kind of safety measures against errors in future code
>> changes, could it be that you have some general QA problems?

That's always a problem with humans in the loop. I very much agree that 
one line or three is far safer against a hasty line insertion than only two.

In my own code I write one if it fits, three if it doesn't. Being easy 
to read is good, being hard to misread is better.
quoted text
> 
> One of the points behind a good coding style is that it should encourage 
> code that is robust against trivial mistakes.  Prefering
> 
> 	if (a) {
> 		b;
> 	}
> 
> over
> 
> 	if (a)
> 		b;
> 
> I consider to be an example of this kind of simple safety.  (And I have 
> in the past seen people getting burned from the obvious error of 
> sticking a debug printf in between.)  ACTUALLY, I'd much, much rather 
> prefer
> 
> 	if (a) b;
> 
> however checkpatch.pl gets angry about that as well (even though the 
> kernel CodingStyle document would seem to actually allow this - it's 
> still one statement and since "b" is outside the normal flow then it's 
> "something to hide" and should be ok in any case).
> 
> 
>> (However, why waste time arguing over braces or not?)
> 
> Tell that to those who would use checkpatch.pl to gate incoming 
> changesets.
> 

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot

--
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/