On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 08:24 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 13:44 -0300, Jo?o Paulo Rechi Vita wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Tanu Kaskinen
> > <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 01:54 -0300, jprvita at gmail.com wrote:
> > >> +pa_bluetooth_transport *pa_bluetooth_transport_new(pa_bluetooth_device *d, const char *owner, const char *path,
> > >> + pa_bluetooth_profile_t p, const uint8_t *config, size_t size) {
> > >
> > > Unaligned parameter list.
> > >
> > > There is some precedence for wrapping long parameter lists like this:
> > >
> > > pa_bluetooth_transport *pa_bluetooth_transport_new(
> > > pa_bluetooth_device *d,
> > > const char *owner,
> > > const char *path,
> > > pa_bluetooth_profile_t p,
> > > const uint8_t *config,
> > > size_t size) {
> > >
> >
> > Ok. Maybe we should add this to the official coding style guidelines
> > in the wiki, although I personally dislike having the function
> > parameters aligned in the same level as the function implementation.
> > My preference would be to have them aligned after the opening
> > parenthesis.
>
> The parameters in my suggestion aren't aligned in the same level as the
> function implementation - the indentation for the parameters is 8
> spaces, while the function implementation is indented by 4 spaces.
>
> I'll discuss with Arun and David about standardizing this or some other
> style.
The result of the discussion was that we decided to use your preferred
style:
pa_bluetooth_transport *pa_bluetooth_transport_new(pa_bluetooth_device *d, const char *owner, const char *path,
pa_bluetooth_profile_t p, const uint8_t *config, size_t size) {
...
}
The CodingStyle wiki page has been updated.
--
Tanu
