Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 10:24:44 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: christoph.mallon@gmx.de Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, rdivacky@FreeBSD.org, ed@FreeBSD.org, dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie, julian@elischer.org Subject: Re: C99: Suggestions for style(9) Message-ID: <20090503.102444.1683323216.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <49FD4391.9070605@gmx.de> References: <49FCAFA2.60603@gmx.de> <20090502.151931.1396014860.imp@bsdimp.com> <49FD4391.9070605@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <49FD4391.9070605@gmx.de>
Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de> writes:
: M. Warner Losh schrieb:
: > In message: <49FCAFA2.60603@gmx.de>
: > Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090503.102444.1683323216.imp>