On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 04:21:34PM -0400, Rob Pierce wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 05:38:34PM +0059, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 11:50:49AM -0400, Rob Pierce wrote:
> > > There are some offending braces. I just added leading tabs in the right
> > > places to correct indentation.
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> >
> > why are you indenting? the point of "-offset indent" in the list/display
> > is to do just that.
> >
> > jmc
>
> Hey Jason,
>
> I am back at my desk now, so here is a better explination of my diff.
>
> In my example corrections I indented the commands, but not the function's
> closing brace.
>
> Is it KNF compliant to have an exit() or return() at the same indentation as
> the closing function brace? For example:
>
> exit(1);
> }
>
> Or:
>
> return(1);
> }
>
> My interpretation was that the style guide (and source code that I have
> looked at) suggests that this is not the preferred style. My understanding
> was that the following is preferred:
>
> exit(1);
> }
>
> And:
>
> return(1);
> }
>
> The common usage() function that I have seen in code is as follows:
>
> /* From ntp.c. */
>
> __dead void
> usage(void)
> {
> extern char *__progname;
>
> if (strcmp(__progname, "ntpctl") == 0)
> fprintf(stderr,
> "usage: ntpctl -s all | peers | Sensors | status\n");
> else
> fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s [-dnSsv] [-f file]\n",
> __progname);
> exit(1);
> }
>
> Rob
>
that's fine, i see what you're trying to do now. someone else will have
to be the judge of whether this is wanted though.
jmc
