Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Coding Standards. was: a style question Message-ID: Date: 6 Dec 90 17:33:16 GMT References: <3072@litchi.bbn.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 24 In article <3072@litchi.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: > In peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >My objection to beautifiers is what they do to stuff like this: > 'T', ARGOPT, argChar, __ &TabChar, "Tab", > If you put the curly braces in then there would be no problem: > { 'T', ARGOPT, argChar, __ &TabChar, "Tab", } Really? I run this code through Indent and I get: { 'T', ARGOPT, argChar, __ & TabChar, "Tab", } > Anyone who maintains the code after you will thank you for it. Good point. I normally do, but in this case I was cribbing from the parseargs sample code. > The other problem is to not use the C pre-processor to change the syntax of > the language, as __ and ENDOFARGS apparently do. Complain to Eric Allman. I don't see this as such a heinious sin, myself, if it significantly improves readability (as it does in this case). -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com