[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [zzdev] Re: (techy) Code specs?
- To: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [zzdev] Re: (techy) Code specs?
- From: Andrew Pam <xanni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 03:17:48 +1100
- In-reply-to: <19981115183508.4703.qmail@xxxxxxxxxx>; from Mark-Jason Dominus on Sun, Nov 15, 1998 at 01:35:08PM -0500
- References: <19981115202336.D3347@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <19981115183508.4703.qmail@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Nov 15, 1998 at 01:35:08PM -0500, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
> > We can fight our religous wars
> Not with me, you can't. I don't fight about stuff like that.
> > 3 space indents
> If you like. I always prefer 2-space, because space is precious.
Likewise, but actually 4-space is probably better for readability.
If the code is so deeply indented that 4-space doesn't fit, it
probably needs to be broken into smaller pieces anyway.
> > prototypes suck
> Prototypes are fine for their intended purposes. The way they're used
> in the existing code is not the intended purpose. My vote: Ditch them.
As I mentioned in an earlier message, I think they're providing a useful
service and should be kept.
> &f() has different semantics from f(). These differences have nothing
> to do with whether the function is in zigzag or not. Why do you want
> to conflate these two nurelated things?
> My vote: Omit & everywhere. Less punctuation is always better.
> > put () on -all- functions
*** Xanni ***
mailto:xanni@xxxxxxxxxx Andrew Pam
http://www.xanadu.com.au/ Technical VP, Xanadu
http://www.glasswings.com.au/ Technical Editor, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/sc/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
P.O. Box 26, East Melbourne VIC 8002 Australia Phone +61 3 96511511