On Nov 1, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> Thoughts?
I agree that we should find a way to express the existing de facto rule
clearly, rather than changing all the code to match the wording of the rule in
the guidelines.
I think the rule is something about indenting code inside namespac
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:00 AM, David Hyatt wrote:
>
> Yeah I agree with Peter. I think blank lines after { and before } would
> improve the readability of the 2nd example even without indentation.
>
> namespace WebCore {
>
> class Authentica
On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:00 AM, David Hyatt wrote:
> Yeah I agree with Peter. I think blank lines after { and before } would
> improve the readability of the 2nd example even without indentation.
>
> namespace WebCore {
>
> class AuthenticationChallenge;
> class CachedFrame;
> class HistoryItem;
Yeah I agree with Peter. I think blank lines after { and before } would
improve the readability of the 2nd example even without indentation.
namespace WebCore {
class AuthenticationChallenge;
class CachedFrame;
class HistoryItem;
class ProtectionSpace;
class ResourceLoader;
class ResourceReques
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Brady Eidson wrote:
> I think this pattern increases readability of forward declarations in
> headers and we should change the style guidelines to specify its continued
> use.
>
> Thoughts?
>
I don't find either one significantly better than the other, personally.
Currently, the style guidelines specify "The contents of an outermost namespace
block (and any nested namespaces with the same scope) should not be indented."
I like this rule - *most* of the time.
A common pattern throughout the project is forward declaring types from
different namespaces in h
6 matches
Mail list logo
