On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
> "David Glasser" <glasser_at_davidglasser.net> writes:
> >> --- trunk/subversion/svn/cl.h (original)
> >> +++ trunk/subversion/svn/cl.h Thu Feb 28 12:54:56 2008
> >> @@ -288,7 +288,8 @@
> >>
> >> /* A conflict-resolution callback which prompts the user to choose
> >> one of the 3 fulltexts, edit the merged file on the spot, or just
> >> - skip the conflict (to be resolved later). */
> >> + skip the conflict (to be resolved later).
> >> + Implements @c svn_wc_conflict_resolver_func_t. */
> >> svn_error_t *
> >> svn_cl__conflict_handler(svn_wc_conflict_result_t **result,
> >> const svn_wc_conflict_description_t *desc,
> >
> > One thing I noticed recently is that rather than throwing in all these
> > comments, we could just declare functions as
> >
> > svn_wc_conflict_resolver_func_t svn_cl__conflict_handler;
> >
> > (We can do this even for static functions; for example, I noticed
> > declarations of svn_opt_subcommand_t like this at the top of
> > svnadmin/main.c.)
> >
> > Is this something we should consider doing more often?
>
> Huh. What about at the definition site? That can't do the same
> thing, or can it?
You can't do this in the definition itself, I think (after all, gotta
name them variables), but you could (for static functions, say) insert
a declaration immediately before the declaration:
static svn_foo_func_t best_foo_ever;
static svn_error_t
best_foo_ever(svn_foo_t x, apr_pool_t *y)
{
}
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-03-01 00:46:28 CET