On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:41:14AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (27/05/15 10:38), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 09:52:11AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >+static errno_t
>> >+get_krb_primary(struct map_id_name_to_krb_primary *name_to_primary,
>> >+ char *id_prov_name, bool cs, const char **_krb_primary)
>> >+ errno_t ret;
>> >+ int i = 0;
>> >+ while(name_to_primary != NULL &&
>> >+ name_to_primary[i].id_name != NULL &&
>> I thought we have a convention to use
>> binary operatort in the begining of
>> line and not at the end.
>> IIRC Stephen sent mail with proposal and we agreed.
>> Sumit uses it quite often.
>Is that a nack or a remark?
It is a start of discussion (remark).
We should make an agreement what do we want to use.
If we don't like Stephen's proposal then
We should agree on something else.
It's really strange to see different convention in different places.
and sometimes difficult (slower?) to read a code.
Well, I /do/ like what Stephen proposed, but if we start using it, we
will have different convention in different places, because previously
we were using the boolean operators at the end of the line, as Pavel
btw in the interest of moving on with this patch, I'll amend the manpage
and push..we can keep discussing about new code..