From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: bwc@borf.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Coding layout query
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-wgymctvrztdmquinrtfqshqxza"
Message-Id: <20020307225109.A915619999@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Thu,  7 Mar 2002 17:54:08 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 615e5d42-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-wgymctvrztdmquinrtfqshqxza
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

/^nurdge/		-- to find the function in the code

--upas-wgymctvrztdmquinrtfqshqxza
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by edsac; Thu Mar  7 18:12:08 EST 2002
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.23.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id 7343119981; Thu,  7 Mar 2002 17:49:57 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (210-86-15-131.ipnets.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.131])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 8D425199E8
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu,  7 Mar 2002 17:48:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from MERCURY ([210.55.57.168]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP
          id <20020307224715.LRFN12547.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@MERCURY>
          for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:47:15 +1300
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020308114929.009a27f0@pop3.clear.net.nz>
X-Sender: mbml/andrew@pop3.clear.net.nz
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: Andrew Simmons <andrew@mbmnz.co.nz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [9fans] Coding layout query
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Help: <mailto:9fans-request@cse.psu.edu?subject=help>
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <https://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 11:49:29 +1300

Not wishing to start a religious debate here, but I notice that in the
Plan9 source code, the return type of a function is placed on a separate
line from the function name when the function is defined:

int
nurdge(int a)

or even

static
int
nurdge(int a)

whereas in the header file, the return type is on the same line:

int	nurdge(int)

It's not a style I've seen before, even, if memory serves, in TPOP, and I
was wondering if it was purely a matter of taste, or whether there was some
perceived benefit to be gained from laying the code out in this way - I
find it rather disconcerting at present.


--upas-wgymctvrztdmquinrtfqshqxza--