From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B6AC2D0E4 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DDC9206FA for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="AP9Sz/SZ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9DDC9206FA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:35060 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kh74A-0000el-Kc for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 03:19:18 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38330) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kh730-0007PC-EE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 03:18:06 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:39985) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kh72y-0001SG-OT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 03:18:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1606119483; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0DlZ/jAcnj6eM02PQYv9eQbhvtTBjxeGDFgWlGpGCtA=; b=AP9Sz/SZlTuVXcnX1Ts1I4AW3k4TGbEiNvZjG9jE0B1UskkYN7A16QI2lhUcaXFCcWY5bq LgqL1WwAbusMLAgk0p7xXRfm3QNKiirsooJvIO0JI+U/49/37PPTs5RcWgZtV22hlGOkxD 3wWwXC61fLBvbcPR02gKYfIrUlyiJnU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-39-4B1fjFgLMoe8kecES97vHw-1; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 03:18:01 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 4B1fjFgLMoe8kecES97vHw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E270A1015944 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (ovpn-112-103.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.103]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B388F60C04; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 47C6411358BA; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:17:59 +0100 (CET) From: Markus Armbruster To: Eduardo Habkost Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] qnum: qnum_value_is_equal() function References: <20201116224143.1284278-1-ehabkost@redhat.com> <20201116224143.1284278-5-ehabkost@redhat.com> <87ima1d4kj.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20201119182403.GY1509407@habkost.net> <871rgo8qq8.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20201120182238.GE2271382@habkost.net> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:17:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20201120182238.GE2271382@habkost.net> (Eduardo Habkost's message of "Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:22:38 -0500") Message-ID: <871rgkwkp4.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=armbru@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Paolo Bonzini , "Daniel P. =?utf-8?Q?Berrang?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9?=" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" Eduardo Habkost writes: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 07:52:31AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Eduardo Habkost writes: >> >> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:27:40AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> > [...] >> >> > +bool qnum_is_equal(const QObject *x, const QObject *y) >> >> > +{ >> >> > + const QNum *qnum_x = qobject_to(QNum, x); >> >> > + const QNum *qnum_y = qobject_to(QNum, y); >> >> >> >> Humor me: blank line between declarations and statements, please. >> > >> > I can do it. But why do you prefer it that way? >> >> Habit borne out of C lacking other visual cues to distinguish >> declarations and statements. > > Why is the distinction important, when many variable declarations > also include initializer expressions that can be as complex as > other statements? > > (The qobject_to() calls above are an example). We read left to right, and we're not good at backtracking. The earlier I know I'm reading a declaration, the better. >> Declaration or statement? Tell me quick, don't analyze! >> >> mumble(*mutter)(); >> >> This "obviously" declares @mutter as pointer to function returning >> mumble. >> >> Except when @mumble isn't a typedef name, but a function taking one >> argument and returning a function that takes no argument. Then it >> passes *mutter to mumble(), and calls its return value. >> >> The whole point of coding style is to help readers along. Two stylistic >> conventions that can help here: >> >> 1. In a function call, no space between the expression denoting the >> called function and the (parenthesized) argument list. Elsewhere, >> space. >> >> So, when the example above is indeed a declaration, write it as >> >> mumble (*mutter)(); >> >> If it's function calls, write it as >> >> mumble(*mutter)(); > > This makes lots of sense. Starting with a word followed by space > is what makes declarations visually distinguishable. Declarations need not match that pattern. Also, it's a rather subtle cue. >> 2. Separate declarations from statements with a blank line. Do not mix >> them. > > I'm not sure about this one, and I'm actually glad it is not part > of CODING_STYLE. :) That's why I ask to "humor me" :) For what it's worth, the convention is common enough to be supported by the traditional BSD indent program. > (I'll still follow your advice as maintainer of that piece of > code, of course) Thanks!