[ros-diffs] [dgorbachev] 39422: Fix bug #4129 in CmpGetNameControlBlock().

[Dmitry Gorbachev]

>   I personally feel consistent application of the style
> is also important, 
>  and that there does not exist a reason to deviate from the established 
>  coding style in this situation. 
I agree that it is good to follow the consistent coding style. The question 
is this style itself is good.

I meant the abstract case of ((a = b) && (c = d)), not the concrete case of 
((ConvKey == HashEntry->ConvKey) && (Length == Ncb->NameLength)).

[Daniel Verkamp]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Dmitry Gorbachev
<d.g.gorbachev(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >   I personally
> > feel consistent application of the style is also important,
> >  and that there does not exist a reason to deviate from the established
> >  coding style in this situation. 
>  I agree that it is good to follow the consistent coding style. The question
>  is this style itself is good.
>
>  I meant the abstract case of ((a = b) && (c = d)), not the concrete case of
>  ((ConvKey == HashEntry->ConvKey) && (Length == Ncb->NameLength)).
>  
Sorry to interrupt, but could you please fix your mailer? It breaks
the thread with every reply you make.