Re: Function definition style

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:54:26PM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> Hi,
>   I noted that in recent patches we started using this style:
> 
> static void
> function_name(type name)
> {
> }
> 
> instead of the "classic" (in our code)
> 
> static void function_name(type name)
> {
> }
> 
> Personally I like the first and I don't complain (and other people
> seems to not complain too) however sometimes it does not fit as the
> other style is used.
>
> Do we agree we can use both styles or we just didn't pay much
> attention?

The later? I'm often writing functions as the first style approach which
is not common style in spice*. For the same reason, I don't pay much
attention of that on reviews.

I would not mind to keep both styles.. or we should really write a hook
to start checking for code style because this is quite common mistake...

Cheers

> 
> Frediano
> _______________________________________________
> Spice-devel mailing list
> Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]