LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Igor Stoppa <>
To: Joe Perches <>, Jonathan Corbet <>,
Subject: Re: [RFC: Coding Style] Best way to split a long function declaration with modifiers
Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 19:10:18 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 12/05/18 18:41, Joe Perches wrote:

>> I personally like more the former, not to mention that it uses also one
>> line less, but it seems less common in the sources.
>> The coding style references do not seem to say anything explicit about
>> which style to prefer.

thank you, I could provide a patch to the docs for this case, if it's 
not considered too much of a corner case.


  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-12 16:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-12 15:19 Igor Stoppa
2018-05-12 15:41 ` Joe Perches
2018-05-12 16:10   ` Igor Stoppa [this message]
     [not found]   ` <>
2018-05-12 16:24     ` Joe Perches

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [RFC: Coding Style] Best way to split a long function declaration with modifiers' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).