On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Michael Sinz wrote:
> kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > We haven't been observing this convention in our code very much.
> > Function calls will put the paren on the same line as the function's
> > name when the first parameter also fits on that line, but when the
> > first parameter is on the next line, we usually (but not always) put
> > the paren on the next line too. Now that you mention it, the most
> > consistent exception to that is code written by you... I always
> > wondered what was up with, e.g., this from libsvn_ra_dav/session.c:
> >
> > authorities = svn_config_get_server_setting(
> > cfg, server_group,
> > SVN_CONFIG_OPTION_SSL_AUTHORITY_FILES,
> > NULL);
> >
This style looks a little odd to me, but I could live with it. I hope
someone can modify svn-dev.el to make Emacs indent like this, though....
But I don't buy the reason - to find call sites - because of function
pointers.
> My vote as to the style was based on the concept that the "(" was part of
> the function token (not really, but syntactically) So, I would claim that
> if the opening "(" is on the next line you break that rule and thus if you
> are looking for "function(" you will miss those cases.
>
> Any others from the "no-space" voting block? (I know what the "space" voting
> block would say :-)
>
>
Heh, you know where I come from...:-) IMO, we were explicitly voting about
space characters; not newlines...
I think it makes sense to go with what's most used in the code currently -
or be slightly inconsistent and accept that and be done with it... But no
strong opinion.
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 16 13:00:45 2006