[Scummvm-devel] Revisiting coding convention for empty loop body
Adrian Frühwirth
scummvm-devel at bonki.net
Sat Apr 21 16:14:34 CEST 2018
Hi,
Since we all agree that a mandatory {} is the best option I'll go ahead and update our CFCs and clean up the tree
accordingly.
Thanks everyone!
-Adrian
On 21.04.2018 15:19, Thierry Crozat wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Although I have no recollection of the discussion you linked to, it looks like using {} is what I suggested back then,
> and I have not changed my mind since then. In addition of silencing the compiler warning, and being compact, it also in
> my opinion makes it more obvious to a human reading the code that this is intentional than using a space. So I would
> also vote for this option.
>
> Thierry
>
>> On 21 Apr 2018, at 13:46, Eugene Sandulenko <sev.mail at gmail.com <mailto:sev.mail at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 21 April 2018 at 12:54, Paul Gilbert <paulfgilbert at gmail.com <mailto:paulfgilbert at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm.. if we'd need to do some form of change to existing code to , I'd be more in favor of mandating the use of
>> {} rather than the semicolon, as opposed to requiring an entire comment just to say that it's intentional that the
>> loop doesn't have a body. It would convey the same information, in a more compact form. And it would have the
>> advantage of bypassing the question of whether semicolons should have spaces in front of them.
>>
>>
>> I like this idea much more. I would even adjust the conventions to reflect it.
>>
>>
>> Eugene
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scummvm-devel mailing list
>> Scummvm-devel at lists.scummvm.org <mailto:Scummvm-devel at lists.scummvm.org>
>> http://lists.scummvm.org/listinfo/scummvm-devel
>
More information about the Scummvm-devel
mailing list