Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Typedef rule
Re: Typedef rule
From: Björn Stenberg <bjorn_at_haxx.se>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:35:47 +0100
Thomas Martitz wrote:
There are times when typedefs are useful, but they are in fact exceptions. I think rather than say we now allow typedefs via some complex set of rules, it is better to treat each typedef as an exception and document in a comment next to the declaration why this typedef is granted an exception. These exceptions can then be explained using the linux kernel guidelines.
> I'd like to trust our developers to weigh up what's reasonable.
That is a slippery assumption. The problem is not "our developers", i.e. those already experienced with Rockbox and know our history and rules. The problem is that "reasonable" has as many definitions as there are people, and even the most horribly obfuscating, code-hiding, typedef-abusing devlopers consider their approach "reasonable".
It is therefore important to be clear up front about what is accepted and not, to avoid people writing large patches in an unacceptable code style.
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew