On 16/05/13 17:17, Chris Michael wrote: > On 16/05/13 16:58, Tom Hacohen wrote: >> On 16/05/13 16:31, Rafael Antognolli wrote: >>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Christopher Michael >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 16/05/13 14:43, Daniel Juyung Seo wrote: >>>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Tom Hacohen >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> On 16/05/13 14:24, Christopher Michael wrote: >>>>>>> On 16/05/13 14:19, Tom Hacohen wrote: >>>>>>>> On 16/05/13 14:17, Christopher Michael wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 16/05/13 14:14, Tom Hacohen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/13 14:06, Christopher Michael wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 16/05/13 14:06, Jérémy Zurcher wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> sorry, but what are those formatting changes ?? >>>>>>>>>>> Removing the parens that were there. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> … >>>>>>>>>>>> I see your commits, >>>>>>>>>>>> clang yells loud about this, many people are moving from gcc to >>>>>>>>>>>> clang, >>>>>>>>>>>> your code will keep yelling so, not really an issue for me. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Really could care less what clang says to be honest :) They >>>>>>>>>>> are ?? who >>>>>>>>>>> ?? Distros still ship with gcc as the default compiler >>>>>>>>>>> afaik....Well, it >>>>>>>>>>> does not yell here so not really an issue for me either ;) >>>>>>>>>> To be fair, that (()) clutter is ugly >>>>>>> Ugly ?? Have you ever looked inside Elementary code ?? Now THAT's >>>>>>> ugly ;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and should be removed even if >>>>>>>>>> clang doesn't complain. Why do you care so much for it anyway? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Tom. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It helps me keep my sanity when dealing with unruley if blocks >>>>>>>>> and truth >>>>>>>>> tests. Well, one man's ugly is another man's beauty I suppose ;) >>>>>>>> How does it help you? I'm genuinely interested. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Tom. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Order of precedence and readability mainly. >>>>>> Double parenthesis don't change the order of precedence. It's fine >>>>>> (and >>>>>> required by our conventions) if you had an AND or OR there, but since >>>>>> you don't have those, it just looks weird. >>>>>> >>>>> +1. >>>>> if ((ee->alpha == alpha)) return; >>>>> ((xxxx === aaa)) looks weird to me. >>>> Yea, that looks weird to me too '===' ?? ;) >>>> >>>>> It works but I am eager to clean this up. >>>>> >>>>> Anyhow, Jeremy could split the formatting fix commit and adding >>>>> missing NULL commit. >>>>> I think that was a point of devilhorns' mail. >>>>> >>>> Well, that was one point, sure....but my main point was... >>>> Don't change the formatting that was previously there please ;) >>> Actually, wouldn't it be better if we try to follow EFL formatting >>> inside the engine code? >>> >>> Of course I also do several mistakes regarding that formatting, but >>> IMHO when this kind of discussion appears, we should just stick to the >>> EFL formatting itself. >> We should stick to the formatting even before this kind of discussions >> appear. > > Yup >> Our coding guidelines don't really say anything regarding over >> resynthesizing, > > Exactly. It don't say anything about it. However, it does say: > > "Our golden rule of coding - *FOLLOW THE CODING STYLE ALREADY THERE*. > That means that if you work on code that already exists, keep to the > spacing, indenting, variable and function naming style, etc. that > already exists." > > "short if (cond) action are fine as single line; > use parenthesis for every clause or math;" > > It also says: > > "Use parenthesis to make clear what you want, even if the operator > precedence is obvious to you. " > > So yes, our standard does not say anything about the extra parens. > >> but I'm quite certain, that if it had anything, it would >> have been a clear "DO NOT DO". Especially in this kind of case where it >> doesn't and will never make any sense. > > Is that because you think it's "ugly" ?? Well, it makes sense to > me...clearly defining the the condition. > > I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of an extra > pair of parens (that do not hurt or do anything, except maybe making > readability better) in code that you don't maintain (and I doubt will > ever even read).... >
Because: 1. Compiling without warnings helps assuring our users that the software we produce is of high quality (yes, clang warnings count). 2. I don't want this ugly epidemic to spread. :) 3. I don't see you do the same in other pieces of code you write. And last, but not least: the guidelines about following the surrounding code are about adding code, not re-factoring. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
