I see the value of replacing NULL with nullptr, but I don't see the value of
these sorts of changes:
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Eugene Zelenko via lldb-commits
> <lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> @@ -118,19 +111,13 @@ ThreadPlanStepInstruction::IsPlanStale (
> StackID cur_frame_id = m_thread.GetStackFrameAtIndex(0)->GetStackID();
> if (cur_frame_id == m_stack_id)
> {
> - if (m_thread.GetRegisterContext()->GetPC(0) != m_instruction_addr)
> - return true;
> - else
> - return false;
> + return (m_thread.GetRegisterContext()->GetPC(0) !=
> m_instruction_addr);
> }
To my eye the second version though more dense, is actually harder to read. I
tend to write returns this way because I like it this way. It mirrors the
thought process - I'm testing something, then doing something, and makes the
various bits of code that do these tests have some uniformity, rather than
burying them behind an assignment or return. Moreover, I don't see the point
of going through and changing code you didn't write to fit your or clang tidy's
preferences. It just sprinkles more random changes into the history that folks
doing archeology now have to look past, and makes the code look like it wasn't
written by whoever wrote it. I don't see the value in either of these.
Jim
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
