On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Tanu Kaskinen
<tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 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:
>
:)
--
Jo?o Paulo Rechi Vita
http://about.me/jprvita
