[Gluster-devel] if/else coding style :-)

Pranith Kumar Karampuri pkarampu at redhat.com
Mon Oct 13 15:05:58 UTC 2014

On 10/13/2014 07:43 PM, Shyam wrote:
> On 10/13/2014 10:08 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>> On 10/13/2014 07:27 PM, Shyam wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2014 08:01 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>>>> hi,
>>>>       Why are we moving away from this coding style?:
>>>> if (x) {
>>>> /*code*/
>>>> } else {
>>>> /* code */
>>>> }
>>> This patch (in master) introduces the same and explains why,
>>> commit 0a8371bdfdd88e662d09def717cc0b822feb64e8
>>> Author: Jeff Darcy <jdarcy at redhat.com>
>>> Date:   Mon Sep 29 17:27:14 2014 -0400
>>>     extras: reverse test for '}' vs. following 'else' placement
>>>     The two-line form "}\nelse {" has been more common than the 
>>> one-line
>>>     form "} else {" in our code for years, and IMO for good reason (see
>>>     the comment in the diff).
>> Will there be any objections to allow the previous way of writing this
>> if/else block? I just don't want to get any errors in 'check-formatting'
>> when I write the old way for this.
>> May be we can change it to warning?
> I am going to state my experience/expectation :)
> I actually got this _error_ when submitting a patch, and thought to 
> myself "isn't the one-line form the right one?" then went to see why 
> this check was in place and read the above. Going by the reason in the 
> patch, I just adapted myself.
> Now, coming to _allowing_ both forms with a warning, my personal call 
> is _no_, we should allow one form so that the code is readable and 
> there is little to no confusion for others on which form to use. So I 
> would say no to your proposal.
Hmm... okay (It is still not an emphatic yes). But it is a waste of time 
to talk more about this.

       I urge you guys to notify others before making basic style 
changes like this.

> Shyam

More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list