[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: (techy) Code specs?

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
No &

-- mkj
Michael K. Jones <mkjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Stone Hill Consulting

	-----Original Message-----
	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.

	Likewise.  :-)

	> >    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
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
	> 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


	> >    put () on -all- functions
	> Agree.


		*** Xanni ***
	mailto:xanni@xxxxxxxxxx                         Andrew Pam
	http://www.xanadu.com.au/                       Technical VP,
	http://www.glasswings.com.au/                   Technical
Editor, Glass Wings
	http://www.sericyb.com.au/sc/                   Manager, Serious
	P.O. Box 26, East Melbourne VIC 8002 Australia  Phone +61 3