On Sat, 17 September 2005 13:34:57 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:18:48PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote:
> >
> > It is an approximation. In my personal experience, the "-l80"
> > parameter is doing a lot of harm. It causes things like
> >
> > if (...)
> > for (...)
> > while (...)
> > if (...)
> > for (...)
> > while (...)
> > some_function(argument,
> > very_long_argument,
> > another_argument,
> > 0,
> > 1,
> > NULL
> > );
>
> ... show up as unreadable crap they are. I fail to see a problem...
> Fix them and run Lindent again, that's it.
Without -l80, this crap takes up fewer lines. Such things usually
occur in 500+ line functions, not counting Lindent expansion. Getting
a fair amount of those lines on the screen helps when fixing things
up.
But that's just my personal approach. As long as the results are
sane, it doesn't really matter.
> Lindent behaviour wrt labels is far more annoying, ditto for the mess it
> often makes out of prototypes (demonstrated in the patch in question).
>
> IME the best way to use Lindent is to do vi -c 's/[[:space:]]*$//|x' foo.c
> first, then run Lindent, then walk through prototypes and fix them,
> diff with pre-Lindent version and see if it looks sane...
You're lucky. I've had to deal with code where the diff with
pre-Lindent version was completely pointless. Original was so broken,
there was no room for regressions.
Jörn
--
"Error protection by error detection and correction."
-- from a university class
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |