similar to: Mis-matched braces in Rd files (PR#1019)

Personally, I favor "always use braces" because it helps readability for me. The compiler may be good at flagging misleading indentation, but my visual processing system is terrible at it, especially since we use a measly two spaces for indentation. And we grant indentation exceptions for--among other things--case labels in switches. When some nested statements have braces and others

Re: placement of braces and "else" clauses. At the R prompt, I believe their placement must avoid causing a syntactically complete statement at the wrong place. This can results in what might be considered rather awkward looking code. IF it is known that code will be used via sourcing a script only, is there any potential problem with placing braces as shown below ? xxx <-

Hi paulr: Thanks for your kindly response. Maybe I don't describe my question cleanly, let me show more information. From my side, I notice that whether we are in the continue keyword mode or we are in the right brace mode, the target of br instruction is the same, i.e. for loop Continue Keyword Mode: ; <label>:6: ; preds = %3 br label

I'll note that reading along I haven't found any of the proposed changes particularly worthwhile.  I'm also not strongly opposed to any of them - I just don't care - but I certainly haven't been convinced there's any clear benefit to be had by changing our current policy. Philip On 6/22/20 1:44 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > For those who don’t like it, is

Me? I would modify the first sentence from: > When writing the body of an if, else, or loop statement, > omit the braces to avoid unnecessary line noise. However, > braces should be used in cases where the omission of braces > harm the readability and maintainability of the code. To be: > Braces are optional around the body of an if, else, or loop statement, > except in cases

This is a known issue already reported to the Rdpack maintainer. In some cases, the Rd code generated by Rdpack's macros contains unnecessary braces that trigger the check note because they match the pattern "text{text}" that detects common mistakes like "code{x}" (missing an escape for the macro name). Rdpack's fork of tools::deparseLatex() is being updated to

Michael Welsh Duggan <mwd at md5i.com> writes: > Using Debian, dovecot-solr 1:2.2.26.0-4, and solr-tomcat 3.6.2+dfsg-9, I > am getting 400 errors when doing searches. Here is an example search > query from dovecot that failed (captured with wireshark): > > Frame 23: 338 bytes on wire (2704 bits), 338 bytes captured (2704 bits) on interface 0 > Linux cooked capture

On 6/23/20 9:39 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Jay Foad via >> llvm-dev >> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 4:47 AM >> To: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> >> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com>

Hello, one of my users set his password to something surrounded by curly braces, and promptly all access to his mailbox was refused. After looking through the logs I found an entry "Unknown password scheme xxxx", where "xxxx" is the user's password, but without the curly braces. I then browsed through the documentation and there was explained that it is possible to prefix

Dear developers, while preparing to submit a package to CRAN, I noticed that a check for lost braces in Rd files (which is enabled in the current r-devel when checking with the '--as-cran' option) seems to return false positives. More specifically, a 'Lost braces' NOTE is issued (at least sometimes) when using the \insertRef{...}{...} command from the Rdpack package. Since

Did this conversation reach a conclusion? My ad hoc tally says that a slight majority of the responders preferred to fully brace statements and no one wanted to totally eliminate braces. The technical arguments for fully braced statements were 1) it's considered a slightly safer coding style and 2) commit diffs with fully braced statements may be slightly more to the point. I didn't

Hello, I am running a program in r that calls a function, which calls another function, which calls another etc. These functions are of the form: example<- function(x,y,z) {x, y, and z are defined within curly braces like this} Here's my question. To start the main function, I input as an initial parameter a matrix of regressors of the form: MyMatrix<-cbind(this.one,that.one)

Hi, I have been using a bit of ruby here and there for scripting jobs for a year or so, and more recently have started dabbling in rails. I was wondering if anyone can help me with a strange behaviour I am getting when trying to run a migration. If I delimit a block for the create_table method with braces, the migration crashes, whereas the exact same code with the braces replaced by

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 17:13:05 +0100 Martin Becker <martin.becker at mx.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > More specifically, a 'Lost braces' NOTE is issued (at least > sometimes) when using the \insertRef{...}{...} command from the > Rdpack package. Does anything change if you use the development version of Rdpack (not currently on CRAN)? Apparently, the latest commit performs some

When I return an html fragment to Ajax.Updater with evalScripts: true set, and there is a script fragment with curly braces in it (a function declaration or an object literal), the curly braces are getting stripped out somehow, and leaving me with invalid JS. I think this is the case because I put an alert in the evalScripts method right before the "return eval(script)" and it had no

Commit-ID: 82ab2c44da800190b0a92336162ca67ba4673600 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=82ab2c44da800190b0a92336162ca67ba4673600 Author: Herbert Xu <herbert at gondor.apana.org.au> AuthorDate: Mon, 27 May 2019 13:39:37 +0800 Committer: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> CommitDate: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 21:42:55 +0000 [klibc] dash: parser: Only

Matt Arsenault via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > I think braces should be added in all contexts, and the more contexts > the better. It eliminates any inconsistency or attempt to contextually > interpret rules. It also reduces merge conflicts, since something > eventually something will probably be added inside any control flow > statement. I’ve suffered

If we had a very naïve way of generating IR, in the 'continue' case you would actually see TWO branch instructions: one to implement the 'continue' statement, and one as part of the control flow of the 'for' loop. The branch for the 'continue' statement would have the source location of the 'continue' and the branch for the control-flow of the 'for'

the version 2 parser thinks I have unnecessary braces, but I can't find any. False positive or am I missing something? If a false positive, is there any way to work around the warning? * checking Rd files against version 2 parser ... WARNING Warning: ./man/dbetabinom.Rd:32-34: Unnecessary braces at ?{p(x) = % (C(N,x)*Beta(N-x+theta*(1-p),x+theta*p))/% Beta(theta*(1-p),theta*p)}?

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:37 AM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2020, at 11:02 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> > wrote: > > I'll note that reading along I haven't found any of the proposed changes > particularly worthwhile. I'm also not strongly opposed to any of them - I > just don't care