[PATCH v4 1/6] drm/format-helper: Add drm_fb_xrgb8888_to_gray8_line()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:12:48PM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Am 14.02.22 um 11:38 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:03:53AM +0100, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > > Am 11.02.22 um 16:41 schrieb Andy Shevchenko:

...

> > > > > IMO *always* prefer a for loop over while or do-while.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The for (i = 0; i < N; i++) is such a strong paradigm in C. You
> > > > > instantly know how many times you're going to loop, at a glance. Not so
> > > > > with with the alternatives, which should be used sparingly.
> > > > 
> > > > while () {}  _is_ a paradigm, for-loop is syntax sugar on top of it.
> > > 
> > > Naw, that's not true.
> > 
> > In the section 3.5 "Loops - While and For" in "The C Programming
> > Language" 2nd by K&R, the authors said:
> 
> Year of publication: 1988 . It's not the most up-to-date reference for C
> programming.

Yet this makes your above remark invalid, i.e. `for` _is_ syntax sugar despite
what you think it's idiomatic _nowadays_.

> > 	The for statement ... is equivalent to ... while..."
> > 
> > They said that for is equivalent to while, and not otherwise.
> 
> Even leaving readability aside, it's not equivalent. You can declare
> variables as part of the for statement. (I know it's not the kernel's
> style.) Also, 'continue' statements are not well-suited in for loops,
> because it's non-obvious if the loop's update statement is being executed.
> (It isn't.)

It's also written in the book :-)

> > Also, syntax sugar by definition declares something that can be written as
> > a single line of code, which usually is done using more (not always).
> 
> The discussion has entered the phase of hair splitting. Good.

I don't know why we are adding an oil into the flames...

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko