# HG changeset patch # User Rob Landley # Date 1402160634 18000 # Node ID 97c7f42068b50b37185e874a4a32fe2442eb16a8 # Parent d90f692a50d4bc919e3f67b19092b91a6e5ca111 Minor tweaks to code style section. diff -r d90f692a50d4 -r 97c7f42068b5 www/design.html --- a/www/design.html Sat Jun 07 10:42:20 2014 -0500 +++ b/www/design.html Sat Jun 07 12:03:54 2014 -0500 @@ -372,15 +372,17 @@

When there's a shorter way to say something, we tend to do that for consistency. For example, we tend to say "*blah" instead of "blah[0]" unless we're referring to more than one element of blah. Similarly, NULL is -really just 0 (and C will automatically typecast 0 to anything), -"if (function() != NULL)" is the same as "if (function())", -"x = (blah == NULL);" is "x = !blah;", and so on. (The goal is to be +really just 0 (and C will automatically typecast 0 to anything, except in +varargs), "if (function() != NULL)" is the same as "if (function())", +"x = (blah == NULL);" is "x = !blah;", and so on.

+ +

The goal is to be concise, not cryptic: if you're worried about the code being hard to understand, splitting it to multiple steps on multiple lines is better than a NOP operation like "!= NULL". A common sign of trying to hard is nesting ? : three levels deep, sometimes if/else and a temporary variable is just plain easier to read. If you think you need a comment, -you may be right.)

+you may be right.

Comments are nice, but don't overdo it. Comments should explain _why_, not how. If the code doesn't make the how part obvious, that's a problem with