Subject: Re: a new KNF (and some comments)
To: Christian E. Hopps <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 01/21/2000 12:20:50
> I've never felt that inline comments were that nice.  If you really
> want to be verbose take that same line by line list and put it in the
> comment.  I think they just clutter the code and obfuscate the function
> type.

I tend to agree.   However, my general reaction to this line of
discussion keeps coming back to this: for god's sake, specify as
little as possible!   One thing in the specification should be "please
try very hard to match the coding style of the file you are
modifying.   Please do not consider it correct to adjust an existing
file to follow a standard unless you personally are going to be the
global maintainer of that file (i.e., not just the NetBSD

I think setting some standards is a good thing, but I also think that
when you start getting too specific, it just creates opportunities for
people to get pissed off, and other people to get self-righteous.   I
know that Luke's intentions with this new version of KNF were pure,
and most of what he suggested is good, but there are some picayune
details that I really hope we'll just leave unspecified.   And while I
would hate to have to hack regularly on code with argument comments
embedded in the declaration, I really don't think we need to outlaw
the practice.