[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: (techy) Code specs?
- To: "'zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx'" <zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: (techy) Code specs?
- From: "Michael K. Jones" <mkjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 11:42:09 -0500
- Reply-to: zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx
I'll cast my vote with Andrew (not that's it's worth much, given that I
have yet to do a lick of work). In decreasing order of how much I care:
Put ( ) on all functions
4 space indents
Michael K. Jones <mkjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Stone Hill Consulting
From: xanni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [SMTP:xanni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1998 11:18 AM
To: Michael K. Jones
Subject: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: (techy) Code specs?
On Sun, Nov 15, 1998 at 01:35:08PM -0500, Mark-Jason Dominus
> > 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
Likewise, but actually 4-space is probably better for
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
> in the existing code is not the intended purpose. My vote:
As I mentioned in an earlier message, I think they're providing
service and should be kept.
> &f() has different semantics from f(). These differences have
> to do with whether the function is in zigzag or not. Why do
> to conflate these two nurelated things?
> My vote: Omit & everywhere. Less punctuation is always
> > put () on -all- functions
*** Xanni ***
mailto:xanni@xxxxxxxxxx Andrew Pam
http://www.xanadu.com.au/ Technical VP,
Editor, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/sc/ Manager, Serious
P.O. Box 26, East Melbourne VIC 8002 Australia Phone +61 3