cuneiform team mailing list archive

[Jussi Pakkanen <jpakkane@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Yury V. Zaytsev <yury@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> a bit nicer and easier to read (and even better if you have huge
> if-clause like !(foo && (bar <= 1) || ((a << 3) && (b & 0xff))) as
> opposed to !(foo&&(bar<=1)||((a<<3)&&(b&0xff))) ), although I probably
> have no right to vote as I didn't contribute a single patch :-(

I agree. Though this is not something you can give exact rules for. It
should be decided on a case by case basis depending on the elements.

But what I originally meant is that we should use

func(par1, par2, par3);

rather than

func ( par1 , par2 , par 3 ) ;

or

func(par1,par2,par3);