From: On Behalf Of Satyam Sharma > readable and obvious at first glance itself. For example, consider: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > if (veryverylengthycondition1 && > smallcond2 && > (conditionnumber3a || > condition3b)) { > ... > } > > versus
Whoops! You've got an unterminated if there, let me fix it up... > if (veryverylengthycondition1) { > && smallcond2 > && (conditionnumber3a > || condition3b)) { > ... > }> From: On Behalf Of Scott Preece > I still find the leading-operator style much more readable. The most > important thing in reading a long, complex conditional is > understanding the structure of the operators, not the operands. Since there's a mix of pre-, post- and infix, the structure of the operators _depends on_ the operands. > However, there's a lot of difference of opinion on this (perhaps > rooted in differences in cognition and reading behavior). For me it's > not even close - expressions broken so the operators are at the head > of the line snap into focus and those with operators at the ends of > the lines look like undifferentiated goo. Since some of the style I'm exactly opposite; the "uncorrected" line above is a typo because there's no continuation item at the end of the line. I don't even see the following lines because they are, by definition, not part of the code I'm looking at. Leaving the operators at the end of the line I easily see that it's a binary operator, and there's no second operand so the next line must contain it, parse the next line as well. Hm. I didn't realise this but the unspoken underlying factor for me is the "one instruction per line" style. If you must break over multiple lines, there must be a continuation item to indicate that. This is how I detect missing semicolons. ..Stu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/