[PATCH] coding style: Follow our own rule on comment style

In our coding style document we have examples of good and bad code, which we mark as: // Good // Bad respectively. But in the very same document we advocate for using C style of comments over C++. Follow our own advice and switch annotation to: /* Good */ /* Bad */ And while at it, align these annotations within their blocks for better readability. Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com&gt; --- docs/coding-style.rst | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/coding-style.rst b/docs/coding-style.rst index 92f6099d82..fe5fe9a906 100644 --- a/docs/coding-style.rst +++ b/docs/coding-style.rst @@ -161,24 +161,24 @@ a single space following them before the opening bracket. E.g. :: - if(foo) // Bad - if (foo) // Good + if(foo) /* Bad */ + if (foo) /* Good */ Function implementations must **not** have any whitespace between the function name and the opening bracket. E.g. :: - int foo (int wizz) // Bad - int foo(int wizz) // Good + int foo (int wizz) /* Bad */ + int foo(int wizz) /* Good */ Function calls must **not** have any whitespace between the function name and the opening bracket. E.g. :: - bar = foo (wizz); // Bad - bar = foo(wizz); // Good + bar = foo (wizz); /* Bad */ + bar = foo(wizz); /* Good */ Function typedefs must **not** have any whitespace between the closing bracket of the function name and opening bracket of the @@ -186,16 +186,16 @@ arg list. E.g. :: - typedef int (*foo) (int wizz); // Bad - typedef int (*foo)(int wizz); // Good + typedef int (*foo) (int wizz); /* Bad */ + typedef int (*foo)(int wizz); /* Good */ There must not be any whitespace immediately following any opening bracket, or immediately prior to any closing bracket. E.g. :: - int foo( int wizz ); // Bad - int foo(int wizz); // Good + int foo( int wizz ); /* Bad */ + int foo(int wizz); /* Good */ Commas ------ @@ -206,8 +206,8 @@ syntax-check'. :: - call(a,b ,c);// Bad - call(a, b, c); // Good + call(a,b ,c); /* Bad */ + call(a, b, c); /* Good */ When declaring an enum or using a struct initializer that occupies more than one line, use a trailing comma. That way, future edits @@ -225,11 +225,11 @@ C99 allows trailing commas, remember that JSON and XDR do not. enum { VALUE_ONE, - VALUE_TWO // Bad + VALUE_TWO /* Bad */ }; enum { VALUE_THREE, - VALUE_FOUR, // Good + VALUE_FOUR, /* Good */ }; Semicolons @@ -243,10 +243,10 @@ not enforced, loop counters generally use post-increment. :: - for (i = 0 ;i < limit ; ++i) { // Bad - for (i = 0; i < limit; i++) { // Good - for (;;) { // ok - while (1) { // Better + for (i = 0 ;i < limit ; ++i) { /* Bad */ + for (i = 0; i < limit; i++) { /* Good */ + for (;;) { /* ok */ + while (1) { /* Better */ Empty loop bodies are better represented with curly braces and a comment, although use of a semicolon is not currently rejected. @@ -254,9 +254,9 @@ comment, although use of a semicolon is not currently rejected. :: while ((rc = waitpid(pid, &st, 0) == -1) && - errno == EINTR); // ok + errno == EINTR); /* ok */ while ((rc = waitpid(pid, &st, 0) == -1) && - errno == EINTR) { // Better + errno == EINTR) { /* Better */ /* nothing */ } @@ -271,19 +271,19 @@ single-\ *statement* loop: each has only one *line* in its body. :: - while (expr) // single line body; {} is optional + while (expr) /* single line body; {} is optional */ single_line_stmt(); :: while (expr(arg1, - arg2)) // indentation makes it obvious it is single line, - single_line_stmt(); // {} is optional (not enforced either way) + arg2)) /* indentation makes it obvious it is single line, */ + single_line_stmt(); /* {} is optional (not enforced either way) */ :: while (expr1 && - expr2) { // multi-line, at same indentation, {} required + expr2) { /* multi-line, at same indentation, {} required */ single_line_stmt(); } @@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ braces), thinking it is already a multi-statement loop: :: - while (true) // BAD! multi-line body with no braces + while (true) /* BAD! multi-line body with no braces */ /* comment... */ single_line_stmt(); @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ Do this instead: :: - while (true) { // Always put braces around a multi-line body. + while (true) { /* Always put braces around a multi-line body. */ /* comment... */ single_line_stmt(); } @@ -325,8 +325,8 @@ To reiterate, don't do this: :: - if (expr) // BAD: no braces around... - while (expr_2) { // ... a multi-line body + if (expr) /* BAD: no braces around... */ + while (expr_2) { /* ... a multi-line body */ ... } @@ -356,11 +356,11 @@ longer, multi-line block be the ``else`` block. ... } else - x = y; // BAD: braceless "else" with braced "then", - // and short block last + x = y; /* BAD: braceless "else" with braced "then", + * and short block last */ if (expr) - x = y; // BAD: braceless "if" with braced "else" + x = y; /* BAD: braceless "if" with braced "else" */ else { ... ... @@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ rather than after the more involved block: :: if (!expr) { - x = y; // putting the smaller block first is more readable + x = y; /* putting the smaller block first is more readable */ } else { ... ... @@ -403,19 +403,19 @@ itself. void foo(int a, int b) - { // correct - function body + { /* correct - function body */ int 2d[][] = { - { // correct - complex initialization + { /* correct - complex initialization */ 1, 2, }, }; if (a) - { // BAD: compound brace on its own line + { /* BAD: compound brace on its own line */ do_stuff(); } - { // correct - nested scope + { /* correct - nested scope */ int tmp; - if (a < b) { // correct - hanging brace + if (a < b) { /* correct - hanging brace */ tmp = b; b = a; a = tmp; @@ -601,7 +601,7 @@ calling another function. x = y + 20; - char *z = NULL; // <=== + char *z = NULL; /* <=== */ ... } -- 2.39.2