Re: [PATCH 0/4] [PATCH 0/5] Add HardwareInterrupt2 for ARM

[Evan Lloyd <Evan.Lloyd@arm.com>]

Hi Andrew.

> From: afish@apple.com [mailto:afish@apple.com] 
> Sent: 21 September 2017 20:15
> To: Evan Lloyd <Evan.Lloyd@arm.com>
> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>; nd <nd@arm.com>; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>; edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Thomas Panakamattam Abraham <thomas.abraham@arm.com>; Arvind Chauhan <Arvind.Chauhan@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [edk2] [PATCH 0/4] [PATCH 0/5] Add HardwareInterrupt2 for ARM
> ?
> 
> If you let me move that | before pushing, I'm happy with this set.
> 
> [[Evan Lloyd]] Very well, if you really feel that strongly. 
> How come you have a code style rooted in the 1960s before you were born, while I've move forward to at least the 1990s.  Shouldn't I be the surly, hide-bound, old, luddite dinosaur?
> 
> 
> Yikes. There is actually no scientific data that one coding standard is better than another. The data does show having a consistent coding style is what has value. 
> 
> I wrote the original coding standard a long time ago.... I remember I was a 4 space indent person, and as a compromise we moved to 2 space indent. It drove me crazy for about 2 weeks and then my brain flipped over and now I prefer 2 spaces, and 4 spaces look strange. Same kind of thing happened when Apple flipped the scroll direction. Folks went crazy, but after a while your brain gets accustomed to the new normal. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andrew Fish

[[Evan Lloyd]] Reading my comment, one could infer that I overdid calling Leif names.
Now I do do that, frequently, but generally to his face, and, if possible, over beer.
He also knows me well enough to know that I WAS there in the 1960s.

The topic under discussion is the placement of operators when splitting lines,
and the standard has no rules but lots of examples that support my case,
which is that:
    if (   (   (some long condition)
            && (Another long condition))
        || (   (something shortish || something shorter)
            && (another test)
            && (yet another check)))

is clearer than:

    if (((some long condition) &&
         (Another long condition)) ||
        ((something shortish || something shorter) &&
         (another test) &&
         (yet another check)))

A major reason for that is that aligning the operators at the start gives
an extra clue as to how they relate to each other. In the second example
the matching of operators can be obscured.

I hold that a similar case applies to ordinary operators:
    variable = (a * (calculation + with))
               / sums;
rather than:
    variable = (a * (calculation + with)) /
               sums;

Regards,
Evan

PS Outlook insists on messing with the "plain text" format, so this may not look right, sorry.