On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Daniel.Egger@xxxxxxx wrote: > On 22 Feb, Manish Singh wrote: > > True, although we have a couple other inconsistencies already. The > > coding style needs to be the same as the rest of gimp though. > > I tried to bring it as near as possible. Of course a lot things could > be better.... I noticed two obvious differences in your code: it does not use two spaces for indentation (the default in Emacs and the recommended GNU style) and there is no space between the function names and the opening parenthesis for the arguments. I suggest that you use a recent version of GNU indent to process your source code and re-indent everything automatically, or that you use Emacs with the default settings (no modifications in a ~/.emacs file) and call indent-region on the whole file. I did not like the GNU style at first (especially the space before the opening parenthesis) but now I understand that it is very important to keep a consistent coding style in each project, because it keeps the code manageable and maintainable. So I always use whatever coding style is recommended for the each project, even if this means that I have to format my patches differently for the Gimp and for a Linux driver, for instance. Since the Gimp uses the GNU style, I think that it is important to follow the GNU coding guidelines faithfully. While we are on the subject of coding style, there are two areas of the Gimp that are not using a consistent coding style: the Script-Fu scripts and, to a lesser extent, the Perl scripts. Is there a recommended style for these? > > It's not that much code, and does fix a gaping hole in the i18n > > framework for plugins not distributed with gimp. Especially if we want > > 1.2 to last a while.. > > That's absolutely right. Yup! Me too (tm). -Raphael
