Hello!
Do you guys have some coding conventions for FLTK project?
I am looking at the code and it is all messed up. At least when editing in vim
indentation is bad, but of course that is not the biggest problem.
If there is, then every time somebody submits a new subversion it must be
checked (t
On 29.04.2010, at 20:28, Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
> Do you guys have some coding conventions for FLTK project?
> I am looking at the code and it is all messed up. At least when editing in
> vim indentation is bad, but of course that is not the biggest problem.
The coding standards for 1.3 are he
Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
> Hello!
> Do you guys have some coding conventions for FLTK project?
> I am looking at the code and it is all messed up. At least when editing in
> vim indentation is bad, but of course that is not the biggest problem.
I'd suggest reporting indent issues with an S
> Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
> > Hello!
> > Do you guys have some coding conventions for FLTK project?
> > I am looking at the code and it is all messed up. At least when editing in
> > vim indentation is bad, but of course that is not the biggest problem.
>
> I'd suggest reporting indent issue
>
> On 29.04.2010, at 20:28, Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
>
> > Do you guys have some coding conventions for FLTK project?
> > I am looking at the code and it is all messed up. At least when =
> editing in vim indentation is bad, but of course that is not the biggest =
> problem.
>
> The coding standard
> >
> > On 29.04.2010, at 20:28, Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
> >
> > > Do you guys have some coding conventions for FLTK project?
> > > I am looking at the code and it is all messed up. At least when =
> > editing in vim indentation is bad, but of course that is not the biggest =
> > problem.
> >
> > T
Emil:
> Somebody uses spaces instead of tabs for indenting so that is why
> indentation is messed up (at least I think so). I have tried cat,
> more, vim with default options and all of them gave me the same
> output (multiples of 2 spaces indent).
The FLTK-1 coding standard specifies the 2 space
> P.S. By the way, I am talking about FLTK 2. I am planing to
> develop it further. I see no point in starting a new FLTK
> version (3) with the same features but more widgets.
Emil,
If you are serious about working on fltk2, you really, really, need to
get in touch with raindowsally, who seem
> Ah, but FLTK-3 will be more than that.
Not least because I hope it will be stable...!
I got quite burned by fltk2 stability issues and API changes in the
past, whilst my fltk-1.1 code just went right on working.
Which is why I use fltk-1 now, and not fltk2.
SELEX Galileo Ltd
Registered Of
OK. Thanks guys for your time and feedback!
But as I was reading Configuration Management Plan I have found that Version
numbering guidelines are not respected. So I was wondering why is that so?
Also I was wondering, wouldn't it be easier to use tabs instead of spaces for
indentation? I am aski
Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
> I was reading Configuration Management Plan I have found that Version
> numbering
> guidelines are not respected.
Specifics?
> Also I was wondering, wouldn't it be easier to use tabs instead of spaces for
> indentation? I am asking this because at least in VIM
> Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
> > I was reading Configuration Management Plan I have found that Version
> > numbering
> > guidelines are not respected.
>
> Specifics?
>
Version numbering rules are not respected at all:
"MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH
MAJOR.MINORbBUILD
MAJOR.MINORrcBUILD"
But all versions a
Emil:
> Version numbering rules are not respected at all:
> "MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH
> MAJOR.MINORbBUILD
> MAJOR.MINORrcBUILD"
>
> But all versions are named something like MAJOR.MINOR.x-r.
> First of all r was not specified in the specifications.
> Second, it does not look like the rules specifies.
On 03.05.2010, at 08:45, Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
>> Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
>>> I was reading Configuration Management Plan I have found that Version
>>> numbering
>>> guidelines are not respected.
>>
>> Specifics?
>>
>
> Version numbering rules are not respected at all:
> "MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH
OK. Thank you!
___
fltk-dev mailing list
fltk-dev@easysw.com
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
On May 3, 2010, at 12:16 AM, Duncan Gibson wrote:
> Emil:
>> Version numbering rules are not respected at all:
>> "MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH
>> MAJOR.MINORbBUILD
>> MAJOR.MINORrcBUILD"
>>
>> But all versions are named something like MAJOR.MINOR.x-r.
>> First of all r was not specified in the specifi
Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
>> Emil Cataranciuc wrote:
>>> I was reading Configuration Management Plan I have found that Version
>>> numbering
>>> guidelines are not respected.
>> Specifics?
>
> Version numbering rules are not respected at all:
> "MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH
> MAJOR.MINORbBUILD
> MAJOR.MI
17 matches
Mail list logo
