On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:27 PM Ryan Hunt <rh...@eqrion.net> wrote:
> Yeah, personally I have found them be useful and don't have an issue with
> keeping
> them. I just wasn't sure if that was a common experience.
>
> So for converting from C-style to C++-style, that would be:
>
> /* static */ void Foo::Bar() {
> ...
> }
>
> // static
> void Foo::Bar() {
> ...
> }
>
>
>
> I think that would be good.
>
Great!
> My one concern would be the presence of other C++-style
> comments before the method definition. For example [1].
>
That's nothing that a bit of regex wizardry can't take care of. :-) How
about detecting those cases and inserting a newline between the comments on
the line before, for extra clarity?
> Ideally documentation like that should go in the header by the method
> declaration, but I
> have no idea if we consistently do that.
>
> [1]
> https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/e4b9b1084292/layout/generic/nsFrame.cpp#l1023
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Monday, January 28, 2019 12:51 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <
> ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is indeed one of the cases where the reformat has made things worse.
> I think as a couple of people have already said, we'll find that some
> people do find these annotations useful, even if they're not always
> consistently present.
>
> The path to least resistance for addressing this problem may be to convert
> these into C++-style comments and therefore moving them into their own
> lines. Would you be OK with that?
>
> Thanks,
> Ehsan
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:49 PM Ryan Hunt <rh...@eqrion.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Quick C++ style question.
>>
>> A common pattern in Gecko is for method definitions to have a comment
>> with the
>> 'static' or 'virtual' qualification.
>>
>> Before the reformat, the comment would be on it's own separate line [1].
>> Now
>> it's on the main line of the definition [2].
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> /* static */ void
>> Foo::Bar() {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> /* static */ void Foo::Bar() {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> Personally I think this now takes too much horizontal space from the main
>> definition, and would prefer it to be either on its own line or just
>> removed.
>>
>> Does anyone have an opinion on whether we still want these comments? And
>> if so
>> whether it makes sense to move them back to their own line.
>>
>> (My ulterior motive is that sublime text's indexer started failing to find
>> these definitions after the reformat, but that should be fixed
>> regardless)
>>
>> If you're interested in what removing these would entail, I wrote a regex
>> to
>> make the change [3].
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ryan
>>
>> [1]
>> https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/0348d472115d/layout/generic/nsFrame.cpp#l1759
>> [2]
>> https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/e4b9b1084292/layout/generic/nsFrame.cpp#l1756
>> [3]
>> https://hg.mozilla.org/try/rev/31ab3e466b6f15dcdbb1aee47edabc7c358b86f2
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dev-platform mailing list
>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
>>
>
>
> --
> Ehsan
>
>
>
--
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
