I'm more of a C programmer, not C++, but several years ago I switched to BSD/KNF style for function definitions because it improved consistency and diff-friendl

I'm more of a C programmer, not C++, but several years ago I switched to BSD/KNF style for function definitions because it improved consistency and diff-friendliness when managing qualifiers and attributes. BSD/KNF style is, int foo(int a, int b) { ... } This lends itself to prepending and appending qualifiers as separate lines, like __attribute__((unused)) __attribute__((format (printf 1, 2))) static inline char * sformat(const char *fmt, ...) { ... } Often I'll split linkage qualifiers (static inline) from return type (char *), especially when linkage is controlled by a macro. K&R and Linux styles are similar: int foo(int a, int b) { ... } Function prototype styles are the same across BSD/KNF, K&R, and Linux, keeping the return type on the same line as the identifier, but I'll often put linkage qualifiers and sometimes even return types on their own line, especially if there are other attributes as well. Note: All these styles normally place braces on the same line as control flow statements. Function definitions are treated differently for what I understand in hindsight are good (if possibly serendipitous) reasons. C++ complicates things with methods, template, etc, so I'm not sure how well the above styles fit C++. In what little C++ I've written one of my first gripes was with difficulties controlling linkage, period.