X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<569C15EB.4010200@iee.org>
Date:	Sun, 17 Jan 2016 22:30:03 +0000
From:	"M. J. Everitt (m DOT j DOT everitt AT iee DOT org) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] cleaner version of fixes to file format plugin
References:	<CAC4O8c88EnAJ1H4YL4rj2O10ihZAz_NYDMSBAWEmdknMNu2b4A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAJXU7q8AtP=UOZrM1e+7Vmimc5kxOjyNrrGjqxcanRTjBWsVDA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <569BCA7F DOT 70903 AT prochac DOT sk> <569BCC77 DOT 60700 AT iee DOT org> <CAC4O8c9_kMdr+3xhe4-CZvUxPGzgqBrLN=Kn+WdGqGVcV1Nbnw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <201601172146 DOT u0HLkPnT008691 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<201601172146.u0HLkPnT008691@envy.delorie.com>
X-Provags-ID:	V03:K0:btwAuDhNSqLyatVw6UXHLLeNj4DxCEZ1SA5b3Mr2mzktcAqyS85
	tLjZiqpBKx7BTEKeb+L559ONlNhz939TXyZFBnPUvo7yshsmr4NwLqmEOsM2VGxAwm+6N2y
	2P3nPTSuVfyrLFYE3p9QoJqsTFvlnMwNnspbB9LP85gke0L2AcevHwcAQa2qp9/nFd6oMsY
	M9PebXn/I+iZphY1Wc5qA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults:	notjunk:1;V01:K0:/DQpQ5wCRJU=:mnvgU1uMWCG/FA1aZank41
	PU9wZe0Gu+yPfRgpjq1TbEienyX0Ah5uck6mIclugQTOOYgpAQUdSdi0iL7UY8z9Ibtq68gwu
	nGIqoAer0iDPmMPxoS+1oDFOm7o4HHeM04hbZmJa1i8BQkxc/WG2sNX2nl8cID2HjxpUE633i
	CWtNmFDpfOIFYHlIb6qz2tmkR/UpyRBSlPymK9iiuS3cpa06lkaYs9OA8MCnZJ9pO+81RXtOg
	PufIas70YESGZAupta9qb7OCAr3HSpiSFVRcEnzOPXO9O9XT5dYhGUCKsTvahNsrnFD4UzpEu
	FObDIjRy5GuhHANjAGqZjMDVGnE9RiXGkk4OMLN00umgAhB6lnH/T8DfAbTvxDtpaoxuBS8wi
	/Nho63TG2/rUcALDxSXuNUKHh0/VQEJiEIoOpK84RJShIMHfMyqcrVuSsNQLzcMiGtvgf7ZWt
	8yqr0KDTVNOko1pXeGwMc7+wysz3d/tHQCyOXEaG09wxoFfamI3f7a2s9JiJVvY+o68VmlSNG
	AoklCCreRw/s8nNtf/t7w/6qQ92OQKE8ZegGFO9VJ5Y0lwZPhVhq1EIM965a4eV8j+mGaHHEW
	sMHdPwTxnSpcBj6fyo9TdYlj1xNxXE8kGdMZx3AiFL522R5ixqZ7yUdxfmcSkIhwTlbt2mHbV
	r3ipq3EgKy1zHPhtJDKkIF+7jHIMm4jdwJHWAT3bYLZfmcZTLVU00B96yaEfd/R0Y3QvG3stJ
	3ynHNV3Jr8evpx+v
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 17/01/16 21:46, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> A number of devels don't actually like the current preferred style, but
>> want to continue using it perhaps out of respect for the original devels.
>> Who aren't even around any more.
> No, the request is that you continue to honor whatever style was there
> before, so that the style remains consistent throughout, which
> increases readability.
>
> Arbitrary changes to style cause diffs to be much bigger than are
> needed to convey the meaning of a change, so you should never
> gratuitously change the style of code in the same patch as anything
> else.  Requests to do nothing other than change the style result in a
> history that hides other changes behind the style change.
>
> So stick with the existing style, and don't change it unless you have
> a REALLY good reason to.
I take the point about diff's going crazy if you change EXISTING code ..
but I see no reason NEW code doesn't fit by a modern coding style. Each
person does tend to code in their own way, and there are always several
different (good and bad) ways to implement any given function.
>> Indentation matters, local consistency matters, // vs /* and which line
>> braces go on don't.
> // vs /* matters if the compiler doesn't support C99 yet.
>
> Granted, most do, but nobody's actually clarified that issue.  Until
> then, and until we officially require a C99 compiler *and test for
> it*, // is still to be avoided.
I think anyone not using a C99 compliant compiler needs kicking out the
developer 'team'/group/merry-band-of-men. There are newer versions STILL
of the C standard out there .. and insisting on being purely c98 or
before is like saying "bugger this , we can't use guile v2.0" - I bet
there are some compiler req's there... !!

It's about time a coding style document was roughed out for geda if this
is really going to be an issue going forward, as it's really off-putting
for incomers to be heavily restricted. Unless you take the stance, of
course, that you're just going to ignore it anyway, and build you're own
personal versions of the software, and never concern yourself with
integrating in the main trunk code....  I'd hope we could all agree that
wasn't a good philosophy though...

- Raw text -