From 61f33134fc9231e07e1b9519b140d68139e9fad0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lennart Poettering Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:09:00 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] CODING_STYLE: clarify that single-line if blocks should not be enclosed in {} --- CODING_STYLE | 15 +++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/CODING_STYLE b/CODING_STYLE index 05b5ecf89..598d241b2 100644 --- a/CODING_STYLE +++ b/CODING_STYLE @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ - For robustness reasons, destructors should be able to destruct half-initialized objects, too -- Error codes are returned as negative Exxx. i.e. return -EINVAL. There +- Error codes are returned as negative Exxx. e.g. return -EINVAL. There are some exceptions: for constructors, it is OK to return NULL on OOM. For lookup functions, NULL is fine too for "not found". @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ doing something wrong! - Stay uniform. For example, always use "usec_t" for time - values. Do not usec mix msec, and usec and whatnot. + values. Do not mix usec and msec, and usec and whatnot. - Make use of _cleanup_free_ and friends. It makes your code much nicer to read! @@ -79,6 +79,17 @@ But it is OK if you do not. +- Single-line "if" blocks should not be enclosed in {}. Use this: + + if (foobar) + waldo(); + + instead of this: + + if (foobar) { + waldo(); + } + - Do not write "foo ()", write "foo()". - Please use streq() and strneq() instead of strcmp(), strncmp() where applicable. -- 2.30.2