Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: code style - my take
Re: code style - my take
From: Robert Hak <rhak_at_ramapo.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 10:57:21 -0500 (EST)
// is a _c++ism_
From the start the core group has rejected and correct patches that
It is not eh "wrong" way. It is a matter of personaly opinion. I find
mixed commends harder to read personnally. Thats why I lean on teh side
of #definging out large sections of code.
Do you still need more reason?
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 08:09, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, TP Diffenbach wrote:
> > Of course, I don't know how well gcc supports C99. But adopting this the
> > C99 Standard might well make /de jure/ constructs that are laready /de
> > facto/ in Rockbox.
> C99 is very well adopted in recent GCC versions, but we don't want to require
> them. We want Rockbox to compile and build even with earlier versions. (Some
> of the C99 stuff was GCC extensions already before C99 was set.)
> Besides: code style, format, indentation, braces, variable names etc in
> Rockbox follow a general style. The style was set by Björn together with the
> original core people, and it has been followed by lots of people without
> problems. The style is somewhat documented in docs/CONTRIBUTING.
http://rockbox.haxx.se/docs/contributing.html says nothing about //
comments not being allowed. I've been using // comments long before
I first heard of C++
// is good for comment lines
/* */ is good for commenting-out code
One or another can be used for either thing but doing it the "wrong"
way is harder on the eyes, brain and fingers.
+-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --+
| Robert E. Hak < http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~rhak > |
"Sometimes, no matter how much faith we have, we lose people. But you
never forget them. And sometimes, it's those memories that give us the
faith to go on."
- Monologue from CBS' Early Edition
Received on 2003-02-22