Github/littlefs
1
Fork 0
Code Actions Activity

Adopted paren-cond ternary operator style

Browse Source 
So:

  x = (cond) ? yes : no;

Where there are always parentheses around the condition, even if not
required for disambiguity. Additional parentheses are always allowed,
but the parenthesized condition helps signal that a ternary operator is
coming earlier in the expression.

This style has grown on me as I think it helps code readability. It
reminds me of the required parentheses for if/while statements.

Might as well adopt codebase-wide.
This commit is contained in:
Christopher Haster
2024-01-20 21:40:00 -06:00
parent 76715ced4a
commit 6fc040db1a
10 changed files with 286 additions and 282 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
tests/test_mtree.toml
+10 -10
View File
@@ -1095,9 +1095,9 @@ code = '''
// choose to create or delete, note we make sure to never delete to zero
uint8_t op = (lfsr_mid_rid(&lfs, mdir.mid) == mdir.rbyd.weight
|| (lfsr_mid_rid(&lfs, mdir.mid) == mdir.rbyd.weight-1
&& lfsr_mtree_weight(&lfs) == lfsr_mweight(&lfs))
&& lfsr_mtree_weight(&lfs) == lfsr_mweight(&lfs)))
? 0
: TEST_PRNG(&prng) % 2);
: TEST_PRNG(&prng) % 2;
// force a compaction?
if (FORCE_COMPACTION) {
@@ -2153,9 +2153,9 @@ code = '''
// choose to create or delete, note we make sure to never delete to zero
uint8_t op = (lfsr_mid_rid(&lfs, mdir.mid) == mdir.rbyd.weight
|| (lfsr_mid_rid(&lfs, mdir.mid) == mdir.rbyd.weight-1
&& lfsr_mtree_weight(&lfs) == lfsr_mweight(&lfs))
&& lfsr_mtree_weight(&lfs) == lfsr_mweight(&lfs)))
? 0
: TEST_PRNG(&prng) % 3);
: TEST_PRNG(&prng) % 3;
// force a compaction?
if (FORCE_COMPACTION) {
@@ -3017,7 +3017,7 @@ code = '''
memset(seen, 0, (BLOCK_COUNT+7)/8);
lfsr_traversal_t traversal = LFSR_TRAVERSAL(
VALIDATE ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
(VALIDATE) ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
for (lfs_block_t i = 0;; i++) {
// a bit hacky, but this catches infinite loops
assert(i < 2*BLOCK_COUNT);
@@ -3130,7 +3130,7 @@ code = '''
memset(seen, 0, (BLOCK_COUNT+7)/8);
lfsr_traversal_t traversal = LFSR_TRAVERSAL(
VALIDATE ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
(VALIDATE) ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
for (lfs_block_t i = 0;; i++) {
// a bit hacky, but this catches infinite loops
assert(i < 2*BLOCK_COUNT);
@@ -3255,7 +3255,7 @@ code = '''
memset(seen, 0, (BLOCK_COUNT+7)/8);
lfsr_traversal_t traversal = LFSR_TRAVERSAL(
VALIDATE ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
(VALIDATE) ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
for (lfs_block_t i = 0;; i++) {
// a bit hacky, but this catches infinite loops
assert(i < 2*BLOCK_COUNT);
@@ -3372,7 +3372,7 @@ code = '''
memset(seen, 0, (BLOCK_COUNT+7)/8);
lfsr_traversal_t traversal = LFSR_TRAVERSAL(
VALIDATE ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
(VALIDATE) ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
for (lfs_block_t i = 0;; i++) {
// a bit hacky, but this catches infinite loops
assert(i < 2*BLOCK_COUNT);
@@ -3506,7 +3506,7 @@ code = '''
memset(seen, 0, (BLOCK_COUNT+7)/8);
lfsr_traversal_t traversal = LFSR_TRAVERSAL(
VALIDATE ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
(VALIDATE) ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
for (lfs_block_t i = 0;; i++) {
// a bit hacky, but this catches infinite loops
assert(i < 2*BLOCK_COUNT);
@@ -3674,7 +3674,7 @@ code = '''
memset(seen, 0, (BLOCK_COUNT+7)/8);
lfsr_traversal_t traversal = LFSR_TRAVERSAL(
VALIDATE ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
(VALIDATE) ? LFSR_TRAVERSAL_VALIDATE : 0);
for (lfs_block_t i = 0;; i++) {
// a bit hacky, but this catches infinite loops
assert(i < 2*BLOCK_COUNT);