Subject: Re: function definitions
From: Thomas Fletcher (thomasf@qnx.com)
Date: Sat Dec 30 2000 - 09:05:03 CST
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Jesper Skov wrote:
> 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.
No! I mind. Seriously I'm not interested in a religious
war here but when you are working on an existing file
PLEASE MAINTAIN THE SAME STYLE. We have a set of very
loose guidelines for formatting to attempt to make things
consistent across the board. Follow those guidelines.
When those guidelines don't specify what to do ... don't
decide to make a gratuitous change that is going to make
one section of code different from other sections of code.
This is in effect what you are doing here. I'm not happy
with this change since it is not at all consistent with the
rest of the source. When you create a brand new source
file you can decide at that time what to do when you
encounter something not in the guidelines, but please
attempt to stay consistant with the rest of the source.
Thanks,
Thomas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat Dec 30 2000 - 09:02:19 CST