From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22624 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2008 18:54:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 22600 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2008 18:54:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:54:02 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F5E10A04; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:54:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF79A1059D; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:53:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L2Vi3-0001Ft-Bd; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:53:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Stan Shebs Cc: Tristan Gingold , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Darwin/x86 port (v4 - part 1/4: machoread.c) Message-ID: <20081118185359.GA4806@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Stan Shebs , Tristan Gingold , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <7B1402FF-6CAB-4C6A-AAB5-81E062080FB5@adacore.com> <49221AE9.5050600@codesourcery.com> <20081118033551.GB18294@caradoc.them.org> <49230DBA.1030208@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49230DBA.1030208@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-11/txt/msg00474.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:47:22AM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote: > The whole space-or-no-space issue is so pedantic I can barely type this > message :-) , but the reality is that if you complicate the rules to > allow some exceptions, it opens the door to interminable debates over > whether this or that construct is exception-worthy. We minimize the time > we spend thinking about this by just having the one simple rule that > mechanically applies to everything. The coding standards are practically a set of codified exceptions anyway :-) Like I said, whichever others prefer - I found this style more readable at the time but it may have been the wrong thing to do. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery