Gerry: > I read something recently with regard to the FLTK coding standard. > I believe there was a comment that indicated the displeasure of > many developers with the current coding standard. It went on to > cite the reason for the fact that no change had been made due to > the lack of a volunteer to make the changes.
Although I don't like the current coding standard, I would be rather reluctant for a wholesale change just for the sake of it. I have done this to inherited code in the past, and regretted it later because there is no way to track incremental changes back through the disruption caused by the reformatting. I have also found that nobody ever likes all of the format rules of a coding standard, even if (especially if?) they are applied automatically via a code beautifier. This is one area where you should conform to the existing format when you change existing code. Having said that, there's nothing to stop any new code being developed using a new code layout [tool] standard, especially as you have said that you would move each function into its own file. And as the original code is simplified it should be possible to format those functions that are modified, ... Oh, I almost forgot: code beautifiers can "justify" comments and this can be a pain in the bum if there is some required structure to those comments. How would you beautifier work with doxygen? Cheers Duncan _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
