Re: ANSI-fy of ranlib, ruptime and rdist [patches]
Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 05:42:38AM +0200, Douwe Kiela wrote:
>
>>* In some cases I find that *rintf() function calls are preceeded by a
>>(void) cast,
>>e.g. (void) printf("blah"); do we want this all over the code, or don't we
>>want this
>>all over the code? In my opinion consistency is a key factor, so we should
>>either
>>maintain this method everywhere, or nowhere.. Opinions about this?
>
>
> Remove them. I'm not really sure why there have been introduced in first
> place, but this is IMO anachronistic.
>
> [skip return value, no opinion on that}
>
>>* Concerning error checking, what should be used, the return value of a
>>function checked
>>within a condition, or the condition that checks the return value
>>seperately, i.e.
>>if ((buf = malloc(bsize)) == NULL)
>> err(1, "buffer");
>>versus
>>buf = malloc(bsize);
>>if (buf == NULL)
>> err(1, "buffer");
>>Any opinions on this? Or just let it be the way it is?
>
>
> I strongly prefer the second version, which is cleaner and often makes
> the code more readable by avoiding site-effects in conditionals. changing
> it depends on the context, but discouraging it in style(9) should be fine.
>
>
>>* Concerning the initialisation of function-scoped variables, which one is
>>the correct..
>>to assign values to variables in their declaration, e.g. int var = 0; or
>>seperately, e.g.
>>int var;
>>var = 0;
>>This is being mixed all over the code, which one is the correct?
>
>
> Normally it is preferable to keep it separate. But an important exception
> is are quasi-arguments like they are used in the kernel for newbus functions.
> You normally get a device_t instance passed as argument and are only
> interested in the softc associated with it, so the
> struct XX_softc = device_get_softc(dev);
> is fine. Similiar arguments are true for net layer and struct ifnet or
> cast of arguments to the appropiately typed variable.
>
>
>>That's all for now, I think ;-)
>
>
> A small note, your MUA does some strange things with the line breaking,
> can you fix that?
Yep, this is fixed now.. I was using Outlook Express, because this is my
business computer, now I use Mozilla Thunderbird, so it should all be
fixed. Sorry 'bout that :) Let's begin.. :P
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 15 之 20 篇)：