STYLE and uncrustify
Daniel Kahn Gillmor
dkg at fifthhorseman.net
Sun Jun 9 12:40:16 PDT 2019
Thanks for doing this kind of cleanup work. Long-term consistency is
worth the short-term pain. The main short-term pain comes from dealing
with changes that are in-flight. As someone with a couple of series
that are in flight, of course i'd prefer that you merge my changes
first, before you apply this cleanup so i don't have to rebase. :P But
i care more that we get the cleanup done, and i'm also fine with
rebasing if you do that. (rebasing against a consistent codebase is
easy, compared to planning and implementing features and fixes
rip the band-aid off!
On Fri 2019-06-07 07:58:24 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> I'm pondering running uncrustify on all/most of the notmuch codebase,
> but I noticed a few things that uncrustify does are either not
> documented in STYLE, or maybe contradicted.
> 1) Should block comments start with '*' ? Uncrustify thinks yes, STYLE
> is silent, the codebase says mostly yes. I think update STYLE to
> match uncrustify here.
> 2) Should there be a space after '!'? Uncrustify says yes, STYLE is
> silent, the codebase is inconsistent. Updating STYLE would be the
> easy thing here, but I remember previous discussions being
I'm fine going with uncrustify's decision for these two points.
> 3) Similar for space between '++' and '--' and operand
for whatever reason, i find myself preferring these attached without a
space between ++ and -- and the operand, whether as a prefix or postfix
operator. If it's possible (i don't really know uncrustify) i'd like to
have the codebase say both "foo++" and "++foo". But if it's hard to
convince uncrustify, or if anyone else has a preference for "foo ++"
> 4) uncrustify wants to move 'const char* foo' to 'const char *foo'.
Yes, please. I prefer keeping the * next to the variable.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the notmuch