Re: patch to style(9) man page to reflect current practices

[User Joerg <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:34:38AM -0800, Chris Pressey wrote:
> This started out as a simple replacement of 'FreeBSD' with 'DragonFly'
> and got out of hand, to the point where it's probably politically
> sensitive :)  To summarize:
> 
> - we're actively moving away from K&R, so actively discourage old-style
> declarations.
> 
> - Matt doesn't seem to have anything against structname_t, so don't
> actively discourage it.

Well, I don't like it. It is the same thing as typedef struct bla;
There are places in the kernel where you want exactly that, e.g. the
various bus tags and the like to force the inclusion of the corresponding
header files, but otherwise it should still be discouraged.

> 
> - Note two unspoken rules: what XXX means and how to format keywords
> that look like functions but aren't (return and sizeof).
> 
> - Miscellaneous clarification.  Notably, one long variable name was so
> long that it caused the example to wrap at 80 columns, which caused the
> && operator to appear on the beginning of the next line.  This obscured
> the point of the example, which is that when lines must be wrapped,
> operators should appear at the *end* of the line :)
> 
> Hoping this might spark some discussion if nothing else.

Thanks. Keeping style(9) up to date is important. And if only to allow
better language lawyering ;-)

I commit your without the above mentioned change. If others feel to discuss
that further, it can be done later too.

Joerg

>
> -Chris