On 1/14/22 10:56 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On a Friday in 2022, Tim Wiederhake wrote:
This was not mentioned before.
Signed-off-by: Tim Wiederhake <twiederh@redhat.com> --- docs/coding-style.rst | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/coding-style.rst b/docs/coding-style.rst index 14c5136398..e1ed34f764 100644 --- a/docs/coding-style.rst +++ b/docs/coding-style.rst @@ -600,6 +600,19 @@ calling another function. ... }
+Define variables on separate lines. This allows for smaller, easier to +understand diffs when changing them. Define variables in the smallest +possible scope. + +:: + + GOOD: + int x; + int y; + + BAD: + int x, y; +
Please use longer variable names and initialize some too, to illustrate it better, e.g.:
int count = 0, nnodes;
Personally I don't mind:
size_t i, j;
that much - even though removing one does cause churn, they are simple to read.
I also don't mind combining simple things like that, but am willing to go full-isolated just for consistency's sake. Since it's Friday and we're talking about personal preferences - I personally dislike the use of i and j (and anything else with a single letter) as variable names, because it makes using a text search for occurences pointless. Sure, longer variable names could also be a substring of something else, and any variable could be re-used elsewhere, but even then a search is mildly usable. (On the other hand, sometimes a loop is just a loop and it takes too much brain capacity to think of a meaningful name for the index. I used to work with someone who always used "ii" and "jj" for generic loop indexes because they were then easy to search for with few false positives (well - "ascii", "skiing", and a surprisingly high number of other more obscure words, but still...) , and I internalized that practice myself. After having libvirt patches with that rejected a couple times, I unlearned and conformed to the hive :-))