----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113299/#review42077 -----------------------------------------------------------
I would leave them alone for now. I think we'll revisit the topic of the coding style shortly before the split. It might makes sense now to stick purely to the Qt style for KF5. - Kevin Ottens On Oct. 17, 2013, 4:19 a.m., Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113299/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 17, 2013, 4:19 a.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Frameworks and kdelibs. > > > Repository: kdelibs > > > Description > ------- > > KDirWatch code style: braces for one-liner conditionals > > Added braces around single-line bodies of conditionals and loops, > as specified in the kdelibs coding style. > --end of commit message-- > > As in my previous review about whitespace, I appreciate any feedback; if I > added braces where the code looked better without or viceversa, or if I > should push this to master too, or if I should leave the damn braces alone > and discard the review :) In some simple cases like "if (stuff) return;" I > wasn't sure if it was better to leave it without braces... > > > Diffs > ----- > > tier1/kcoreaddons/src/lib/io/kdirwatch.cpp > e4f45441d5ed68e3e34ae2bd68e16fd3dc46656a > tier1/kcoreaddons/src/lib/io/kdirwatch_p.h > 442d6497b704c179adc13dbb25e450554d31554d > > Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113299/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > It compiles, tests pass. > > > Thanks, > > Nicolás Alvarez > >
