[Corelinux-develop] Bug #113984

[Hans D. <dul...@eg...>]

Frank, I thought I fixed bug 113984 (header alignments).
But again I checked the cppstnd.tex and could not find any
appropriate guidelines.

You wrote the following three lines in the bug report:

[#1] Method comments should left justify with return type in signature. 
[#2] Method signatures should left justify with return types in
signature. 
[#3] Return types generally align on a four level indentation depth.


My questions:
Point #1 and #2 were clearly understood.
Point #3 is a bit unclear: when you mentioned "4-level deep", which
column is the reference column? I assume it is 4-level deep relative
to the "class" keyword.

Is the following correctly indented according to the above 'guidelines'? 
(leading blanks were replaced with = or -)

namespace corelinux {

===class MyClass {
===---===---===/** 
===---===---===---constructors have no return type.
===---===---===---I assume the return type is "empty string"
===---===---===*/
===---===---===MyClass( params );

===---===---===/// comment for virtual MethodA             
===---virtual  ReturnType MethodA( signature ... );

===---===---===/// comment for methodB
===---===---===void MethodB ( signature ... );
===};
}

I think we should add this "guideline" to the C++ Coding standard.

-- 
Hans Dulimarta, Ph.D.                  dul...@co...
P: 517-432-7589             http://www.egr.msu.edu/~dulimart   
F: 760-281-7691             http://corelinux.sourceforge.net
Elec. & Comp. Engg., Mich. State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824