Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:53:23 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, j@uriah.heep.sax.de Subject: Re: NULL as ((void*)0) (was Re: strlen() question) Message-ID: <199702151853.LAA03759@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199702150634.RAA07576@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Feb 15, 97 05:34:19 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I only insist on K&R compatibility for consistency. BTW, the > Lite2 merge would have been much easier if we had followed the > style guide for new code and not changed the style of old code > just to fix warnings. Changing `if (error = barf()) ...' to > `error = barf;<newline>if (error) ...' caused lots of conflicts > and usually got undone when barf() involves vfs stuff. The conversion from the use of assignment expression lvalues is an intentional style issue?!?! Does style also have us avoiding the comma operator, the question-mark operator, bit fields, and similar things, all of which might also be confusing to the total novice C programmer?!?! What about partial agregate initilization? I see it all over the kernel... and what about dangling commas in lists of enumerated types? The implication is that there exists a manifest zero... Ugh. Next we will avoid function calls because they are confusing to Pascal programmers who expect them to be hierarchically scoped... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702151853.LAA03759>