From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D081A1F407 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751408AbdLJWgo (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:36:44 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:61093 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751263AbdLJWgo (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:36:44 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF79CB79B; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:36:43 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=mQZmFA7Nu0eilpmJZnYIFDb4CjA=; b=vr9r/U zI8v0/s/MrqDjXG+VKE2DZlejeXZkutn3BDhHW3VIE8eMJKKHkn3qSYSiFauuSq+ +3JB0pA28sPyjUQrgItxhnnbJgmX1zhsmKI3zenKWfJiYkcHF7oHdS7YHvqnWT/y RC+exHmmDQgvgBGxAwSA8nHnXdUEtFlQFE/Vw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Y/QOz/wA5RJDVYSysIR2DZgJDHT1oxKb 8bhD07xG/LRc4bkgxAiXAD+IkW/wQ1HwMr4JqIgTzlqOXPTPvRNsYPrJ0P2ohrVa WDKgksH3cMRtIUZ45uNZ6Ndg6073zJvfytz603MZjgimuGJzXSBGYovg1nadg0Nq 3bJIqhB4wVA= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 460EACB79A; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4AA4CB799; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:36:42 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Olga Telezhnaya , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH Outreachy 1/2] format: create pretty.h file References: <01020160364a23d5-471a2fd0-9fff-4599-86f8-b2f37a4a0a84-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com> <20171210145354.GA20367@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:36:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20171210145354.GA20367@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Sun, 10 Dec 2017 09:53:54 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 98769742-DDFA-11E7-88D5-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:40:09AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I see you've "standardized" to drop "extern" from the declarations >> in the header; I have an impression that our preference however is >> to go in the other direction. > > Can we revisit that? > > I haven't see any compelling reason to include the "extern" in a > declaration. And all things being equal, I'd prefer the thing that makes > the source code shorter, and is one less thing for authors to remember > to do. Surely, but there is no point revisiting. I simply misremembered what we did at around 1354c9b2 ("refs: remove unnecessary "extern" keywords", 2016-03-31). As long as we know which way we are standardizing, I personally do not have strong preference either way. I appreciate shorter-to-type (i.e. missing "extern") but I also appreciate the more familiar and logical declaration in a header file that indicates something exists somewhere (i.e. explicit "extern") ;-). Thanks.