Menu
▾
▴
[Gaim-patches] [ gaim-Patches-1112739 ] Gaim HEAD cleanup
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2005-02-22 03:28:15
|
Patches item #1112739, was opened at 2005-01-30 15:18 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by seanegan You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300235&aid=1112739&group_id=235 Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Rejected Priority: 5 Submitted By: Felipe Contreras (revo) Assigned to: Sean Egan (seanegan) Summary: Gaim HEAD cleanup Initial Comment: Some codestyle cleanups. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Sean Egan (seanegan) Date: 2005-02-21 22:28 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=199625 I'm going to reject this out of principle. I don't disagree with the changes, in particular gaim_debug_* is very good, and I do prefer a space between if and he parentheses. But they're all very minor; gaim_debug_* is the only one that has any real benefit as far as I can tell. Anyway, accepting this patch would effectively be "endorsing" a particular coding style, which is not something I want to do; I have very few concerns about the coding style used in Gaim. However, when I find something I blatently dislike (Chip's 2-space indents causing second-lines of text to appear way out to the right, for example), I make it the way I want. Other people do the same to my blank lines full o' whitespace. In this way, I suppose the style evolves to be what annoys people least. I think it would be silly and pedantic to commit a patch that does nothing but move parentheses around, expecting people to conform to some utopian code style. I would love it, though, if you could separate out the gaim_debug_* changes and submit that separately. If I change my mind on the rest, any one of us can run indent on the code. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mark Doliner (thekingant) Date: 2005-02-07 18:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=20979 I like that coding style, but I'm not going to be the one to apply this patch. I don't think it's really necessary. It would probably conflict with some people's local CVS changes. And it would also obscure some CVS history (but that's pretty unimportant to me). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Luke Schierer (lschiere) Date: 2005-01-31 07:50 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28833 Sean, what do you think? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Felipe Contreras (revo) Date: 2005-01-31 03:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=158337 Never. I did basically 4 changes in some, not all, files. 1) Change "gaim_debug(GAIM_DEBUG_WHATEVER" to "gaim_debug_whatever". This I remeber some of the main devs agreed, specially KingAnt from whom I remember seen similar cleaups. 2) Break "void function" into "void\nfunction". I think this doesn't follow the old Gaim codestyle but now it's more widely used, and in my humble opinion, it's much better, specially considering the large function names Gaim has. 3) Add space condition structes, like "if(" to "if (". I think this is the old style, much more widely used, and I also preffer it. 4) For the indenting of unclosed parenthesis I choosed to start exactly below the parenthesis since that seemed to be more widely used. But I was flexible; in some parts I choosed the old style, that depended on the context. I also did some other small changes. I once purposed in #gaim to decide about an official codestyle, but since there doesn't seem to be a lot of action in that respect, I would ask to the devs: You like the patch, or not? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nathan Walp (faceprint) Date: 2005-01-31 01:03 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=17471 when did we decide this was gaim codestyle? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300235&aid=1112739&group_id=235 |