[pacman-dev] [PATCH 4/5] Versioned provisions

Dan McGee dpmcgee at gmail.com
Mon Nov 19 13:59:36 EST 2007

On Nov 19, 2007 12:34 PM, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 12:13:14PM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 2007 8:06 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > == 0 is much clearer, so I'm going to change this back if I pull the
> > > patch. Let's not take shortcuts in C just because they work- lets make
> > > the code readable for everyone. It will all get compiled the same way
> > > anyway. As a general rule, I always want to see an == or != used with
> > > strcmp- it is just easier to digest.
> >
> > This is also in the pacman coding guidelines somewhere, for the record.
> >
> Thank you for bringing this up again, I already forgot.
> That's exactly what I wanted to say : if patches are going to be rejected for
> a code style reason, then all these reasons should be written somewhere.
> I don't see what other places to look at, all other coding guidelines are in
> HACKING, and I can't find any mention of strcmp.
> Also, this rule only applies to strcmp? Because it returns 0 in case of
> success?
> And I just grepped the source for strcmp, it seems like it isn't used with ==
> or != in the majority of the cases. Even though there are also many cases
> where it is.
> Note that I don't have any problem with coding guidelines, as long as they
> are clear and written.
> I'm all for a consistent style.

OK, I will put this on my TODO list and get it into the GIT repo- I
think it makes more sense and we can all refer to it there. I will
also add some of these "unwritten rules". I'll even post it here first
to see if their are any objections.



More information about the pacman-dev mailing list