function definitions

Subject: function definitions
From: Jesper Skov (jskov@redhat.com)
Date: Fri Dec 29 2000 - 14:24:29 CST

• sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: WJCarpenter: "RE: function definitions"
• Previous message: Lukas Pietsch: "Unicode Fonts in Win98 Again"
• Next in thread: WJCarpenter: "RE: function definitions"
• Reply: WJCarpenter: "RE: function definitions"
• Reply: Thomas Fletcher: "Re: function definitions"
• Reply: Thomas Fletcher: "Right click word fix"

Hi

I just remembered: in the changes I committed to fl_Container.cpp I
changed function defintions from

return_type foo(...)

to

return_type
foo(...)

A bad habbit I guess - it makes the code look pwetty in emacs since it
does a better job of highlighting the function name / types and
stuff. All stems from the GNU coding standard uses that format, I
guess.

Anyway, does anybody mind? Does it screw up VS highlighting for
instance? Does it look gross to anyone?

I can change it back if necessary - otherwise I'll probably make that
change to the files I happen to visit as I hack away.

Jesper

• Next message: WJCarpenter: "RE: function definitions"
• Previous message: Lukas Pietsch: "Unicode Fonts in Win98 Again"
• Next in thread: WJCarpenter: "RE: function definitions"
• Reply: WJCarpenter: "RE: function definitions"
• Reply: Thomas Fletcher: "Re: function definitions"
• Reply: Thomas Fletcher: "Right click word fix"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Dec 29 2000 - 14:24:41 CST