[tuxdroid-user] Fwd: Re: PATCH: For new coding style

[David B. <da...@ja...>]

Thanks Henrik,

Do other people have problems posting on the list? For those who never  
posted, just give us your opinion so you'll know if it works or not.

------- Forwarded message -------
From: "Henrik Grindal Bakken" <hg...@if...>
To: da...@ja...
Subject: Re: [tuxdroid-user] PATCH: For new coding style
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:05:22 +0100

"David Bourgeois" <da...@ja...> writes:

Since you asked for opinions...  I emailed this to you directly (hope
you didn't get two copies now...), because either the sourceforge mail
server or my work mail server refused me to post to the list.

> In these guidelines, I was surprised to see that you prefer flower
> braces on a new line (#2). That's the way I personally like it but
> when looking at various guidelines I saw that most of the time they
> prefer and recommend the more compact use #1 instead. I'm just
> concerned many coders will prefer #1. What do you think?
>
> #1:
>   if (test) {
>       // do something
>   }
>
> #2:
>   if (test)
>   {
>       // do something
>   }

Personally, at least, I prefer #1.

> Another point, functions seems to be declared that way:
>
> type
> my_function (
>     type arg1,
>     type arg2,
>         )
> {
>     // body
> }
>
> while another common way is
>
> type my_function (type arg1, type arg2)
> {
>     // body
> }

I prefer #2 here (actually, I prefer to have the opening brace on the
same line as well, but that's not too common, I think).  I think the
best argument for #2 is that it helps grepping.  If a function has
many arguments, one can always do
type func(type arg1,
           type arg2,
           ...
           type argn)
{

}

I prefer having return type on the same line as the function name no
matter how one place the arguments.  Using doxygen to document
arguments is a better solution than per-argument comments anyway,
IMHO.

Hopefully the tuxen will arrive soon.  Then I guess I have to have a
look at the code myself too :)