Pete Robbins wrote:
I prefer the SCA style rather than the ones in SDO. The full path is
better
as well so
#ifndef commonj_sdo_changeddataobjectlist_h
is what I would use.
However, I don't think this affects the readabillity of the code so I
don't
propose we change them all. We need to update the licence header in every
file at some point so we could change these at that time if necessary.
Cheers,
PS. Let's not get into the discussion on where you place your opening
"{".
If the code is readable then it's ok by me rather than getting anal on
code
formating standards ;-)
OK I agree with you that we don't need to change the existing ones at
this point, I was just thinking about what to do in new files.
+1 on the SCA style, that's what I'll use from now on.
I'm with you on keeping the code readable while staying open to
different coding styles. Like I said below I usually try to follow the
style I find in existing code and so far I've found the Tuscany C++ code
quite readable.
On 23/08/06, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see two different coding conventions for the usual
#ifndef/#define/#endif in our include files:
#ifndef tuscany_sca_model_binding_h in tuscany::sca::model::Binding.h
#ifndef _CHANGEDDATAOBJECTLIST_H_ in
commonj::sdo::ChangedDataObjectList.h
Can we decide on a common convention? I have used both conventions in
the past, so I'm OK with either but think it'd be nicer if we could pick
one and stick to it.
Until we make a decision I'll follow my old code maintainer habit to
stick to the scheme I see in the code around what I'm adding/changing.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
