2015-01-06 14:48 GMT+01:00 Wayne Stambaugh :
> On 1/5/2015 7:28 PM, Adam Wolf wrote:
>> I think that is a good idea.
>>
>> Is our "coding standard checker" script still working well?
>
> I haven't used uncrustify in a while so I'm not sure. The last time I
> did use it, it seemed to handle everyth
On 1/5/2015 7:28 PM, Adam Wolf wrote:
> I think that is a good idea.
>
> Is our "coding standard checker" script still working well?
I haven't used uncrustify in a while so I'm not sure. The last time I
did use it, it seemed to handle everything OK except the _() macros
which for some reason the
I think the uncrustify script is working well.
I tested it on the pcbnew/eagle_plugin.cpp which I am going to make a
patch for, but it did change a lot, like making multiline comments to
have asterisks in each line. So will it be better to submit a patch
for the functional changes, such that they
I think that is a good idea.
Is our "coding standard checker" script still working well?
Adam Wolf
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Nick Østergaard wrote:
> Hi Wayne
>
> I was just looking at the coding style policy in
> Documentation/coding_style_policy.pdf and think the format (pdf) is
> not
Hi Wayne
I was just looking at the coding style policy in
Documentation/coding_style_policy.pdf and think the format (pdf) is
not that great for linking and sharing to newcomers.
Would it be a good idea to convert it to md for the use in the
doxygen-docs along side the roadmap and stable realease
5 matches
Mail list logo
