I like it mostly for its brevity, but I also think it would be strange that changing a return type from bool to void or vice versa would require touching all its call sites.
> On Feb 20, 2019, at 1:20 PM, Chris Dumez <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 20, 2019, at 1:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> It seems like `return foo();` where foo() is a void function can always be >> replaced with `foo(); return;` for greater clarity at the cost of one extra >> line break. For people who prefer the one-line style, can you say why you >> don’t like the other way? > > We do not allow more than one statement per line so it would be: > foo(); > return; > > Also, since we favor early returns in WebKit, things like: > If (!nok) > return completionHandler(Failed); > > Would become: > If (!nok) { > completionHandler(Failed); > return; > } > > It is not a big deal but I personally prefer the most concise version. > Especially, it is not uncommon to have multiple early returns. > I think more concise is better and I personally do not see a readability > issue here. It does not really matter what the completion handler is > returning. > >> >> - Maciej >> >>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 10:33 AM, Simon Fraser <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> I find it mind bending. It makes me wonder if the author made a coding >>> error. >>> >>> Simon >>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Daniel Bates <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for the opinion! >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:26 AM, Saam Barati <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I prefer it as well. >>>>> >>>>> - Saam >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 6:58 AM, Chris Dumez <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I also prefer allowed returning void. >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris Dumez >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:35 PM, Daniel Bates <[email protected] >>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Feb 19, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected] >>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 8:59 PM Daniel Bates <[email protected] >>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > On Feb 7, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Daniel Bates <[email protected] >>>>>>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Hi all, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Something bothers me about code like: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > void f(); >>>>>>>> > void g() >>>>>>>> > { >>>>>>>> > if (...) >>>>>>>> > return f(); >>>>>>>> > return f(); >>>>>>>> > } >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > I prefer: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > void g() >>>>>>>> > { >>>>>>>> > if (...) { >>>>>>>> > f(); >>>>>>>> > return >>>>>>>> > } >>>>>>>> > f(); >>>>>>>> > } >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Based on the responses it seems there is sufficient leaning to codify >>>>>>>> the latter style. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think there is a sufficient consensus as far as I can tell. >>>>>>>> Geoff >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I didn't get this from Geoff's remark. Geoff wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ***“return f()” when f returns void is a bit mind bending.*** >>>>>>> Don't want to put words in Geoff's mouth. So, Geoff can you please >>>>>>> confirm: for the former style, for the latter style, no strong opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and Alex both expressed preferences for being able to return void, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I got this from Alex's message >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and Saam pointed out that there is a lot of existing code which does >>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did not get this. He wrote emphasis mine: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've definitely done this in JSC. ***I don't think it's super >>>>>>> common***, but I've also seen code in JSC not written by me that also >>>>>>> does this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Zalan also said he does this in his layout code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did not get this, quoting, emphasis mine: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I use this idiom too in the layout code. I guess I just prefer a more >>>>>>> compact code. >>>>>>> ***(I don't feel too strongly about it though)*** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> By the way, you even acknowledged that "WebKit ... tend[s] to have a >>>>>>> separate return.". So, I inferred you were okay with it. But from this >>>>>>> email I am no longer sure what your position is. Please state it >>>>>>> clearly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - R. Niwa >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> webkit-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >>>>>>> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> webkit-dev mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >>>>>> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> webkit-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >>>> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> webkit-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >>> <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev > <https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev>
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
