[Geany-devel] On coding style

[Enrico Tröger]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 00:43:02 +0200, Thomas wrote:

>Thomas Martitz schrieb:
>> Lex Trotman schrieb:
>>> Several of the things you changed I had thought I had right, so
>>> maybe hacking.html needs to be more explicit rather than just "like
>>> the rest of the code".
>>>   
>>
>> This is what I had an argument with Enrico too recently. HACKING is 
>> nowhere near accurate, as it's poorly describing what style Enrico

As already said, I try to update the HACKING file soon. Still, in the
argument we had recently, I told you that some of the issues I had with
your coding style we had already discussed in the past (e.g. in the
snippets patches). But you are right, if the style guidelines would be
better and more detailed described, we could have saved this conversion
(and maybe even this one).
It's somewhat my bad, no doubt.


>> In addition, seem Enrico and Nick run with extra CFLAGS which reveal 
>> extra warnings (some of which warn for perfectly conform C code, but 
>> well ;) ) which are not documented.

They are not "documented" because these flags are not required not
suggested or anything. *We* do use them because *we* do like to.
Anyway, I posted the flags I use more than one time on the list (not
sure which one, maybe this one, maybe geany at uvena.de). Let's do it once
more:
http://nopaste.geany.org/p/fe14fca2

What exactly are you referring to by saying "some of which warn for
perfectly conform C code". In case you are talking about the famous
"don't mix code and variable declarations" warning, we could argue
again. You would say, this is valid C and I would say this is not valid
C. And we are both right as long as we don't specifiy about which C
standard we are talking. Luckily, the HACKING file states the we want
to stay compatible with C90 and developers can check their code with
gcc's -ansi flag. 
Anyway, I really don't see a problem with this. Such things can be
easily fixed and I didn't intend to really make this a big thing. If I
did anyway, I'm sorry.


>So, to finish of my mail:
>"like the rest of the code" is a poor and inaccurate statement.
>Besides, that this is basically true for any project I've seen, it
>doesn't help you identifying tiny stuff such as trying to avoid shadow

See above, such easy-to-fix compiler warnings are not a topic. I guess
you are referring to the warning I was talking about in your patch when
we discussed it on IRC, this was somewhat special because you modified
a part of the code which was completely unrelated to your patch and
this modification caused the warning. I just don't like doing many
different, unrelated things in one patch.
IMO patches should be rather atomic, similar to commits. But really,
this is another story.


>declarations or indentation when breaking long lines and stuff.
>HACKING should be as explicit as possible, to avoid additional work
>for *both*, the contributors and the reviewers.

I fully agree and will try to improve this soon. Sorry for the
inconvenience you experienced in the meantime.


Regards,
Enrico

-- 
Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20090908/83a19725/attachment.pgp>