On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:31:45AM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> Hi,
> I was reading the style document and I found some different styles in the code
>
> The structures for GObject differs from the rest of the code, they are
>
> struct DispatcherClass
> {
> GObjectClass parent_class;
> };
>
> instead of
>
> struct DispatcherClass {
> GObjectClass parent_class;
> };
>
> (all other structure follow this schema)
I guess it's just that noone paid attention to the difference, I'd just
fix it.
>
>
> There is a chapter "Vertical indentation" which state that there is no
> vertical indentation quoting even some example of functions however
> there are some code, like
>
> void red_qxl_on_ic_change(QXLInstance *qxl, SpiceImageCompression ic);
> void red_qxl_on_sv_change(QXLInstance *qxl, int sv);
> void red_qxl_set_mouse_mode(QXLInstance *qxl, uint32_t mode);
> void red_qxl_attach_worker(QXLInstance *qxl);
>
> that follow these specification while others
>
> void display_channel_draw (DisplayChannel *display,
> const SpiceRect *area,
> int surface_id);
> void display_channel_draw_until (DisplayChannel *display,
> const SpiceRect *area,
> int surface_id,
> Drawable *last);
> void display_channel_update (DisplayChannel *display,
> uint32_t surface_id,
> const QXLRect *area,
>
> that clearly use vertical indentation.
>
> I personally find that vertical indentation tend to cause long lines and
> it's hard to maintain when new declarations are added (like requiring
> new indentation) but the main argument is that I'd like to follow same
> rules or define exceptions with rules (like structure declarations for
> GObject have bracket on first column).
Yup, I'd avoid vertical indentation too. I don't think it's very
important to fix the existing instances until we touch that part of the
code though.
Christophe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel