On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 00:12:58 GMT, Sergey Bylokhov <s...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I do not suggest that the change should be moved forth and back, but I think
>> that the second conditions should always be shifted, and if this causes 80
>> chars overflow then some other line split/rename/etc should be done to
>> prevent that.
>>
>> Recent example of such style...:
>> if ((getColorSpaceType (p) == ColorSpace.TYPE_RGB) &&
>> (getData (p, icSigMediaWhitePointTag) != null) &&
>> (getData (p, icSigRedColorantTag) != null) &&
>> (getData (p, icSigGreenColorantTag) != null) &&
>> (getData (p, icSigBlueColorantTag) != null) &&
>> (getData (p, icSigRedTRCTag) != null) &&
>> (getData (p, icSigGreenTRCTag) != null) &&
>> (getData (p, icSigBlueTRCTag) != null)) {
>> thisProfile = new ICC_ProfileRGB (p);
>>
>> Is that really looks fine?
>
>> To make it clear, you're for keeping the indentation as it was in the
>> original PR to visually separate condition from the statement in the if
>> block. Do I get it right, @mrserb?
>
> I think it looks better.
BTW another solution is to move { to the next line if the previous statement
was split across few lines.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3151
