Robert Shearman wrote:
If the code makes me want to scratch my eyes out, I'm not likely to want
to hack on it.
If you want to modify piece of code X, then code in the same style as
piece of code X. Then piece of code X will all be written in the same
coding style, and will be less eye-scratchy.
Mike McCormack wrote:
Mike Hearn wrote:
Yes this looks good but for internal functions IMHO it's best to use
GNU style naming, eg:
static int file_operation_delete(...)
{
}
SHELL_internal_function() is a better way to go, IMO. It's already
the Wine convention,
An ugly convention. SHOUTING is no
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:57:29 +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
> SHELL_internal_function() is a better way to go, IMO. It's already the
> Wine convention, you can easily locate the function, and it helps make
> sure no two functions will be named the same thing. There's no reason
> to make a new co
Joris Huizer wrote:
Hmm, I see this indeed; should I rename and send again?
The convension seems to be like SHELL_internetFunction(), although there
also seem to be a few SHELL32_* functions
Up to you.
I also saw a few other debugger helper functions for SHFileOperationW,
named debug_shfileops_f
Mike McCormack wrote:
Mike Hearn wrote:
Yes this looks good but for internal functions IMHO it's best to use
GNU style naming, eg:
static int file_operation_delete(...)
{
}
SHELL_internal_function() is a better way to go, IMO. It's already the
Wine convention, you can easily locate the function,
Mike Hearn wrote:
Yes this looks good but for internal functions IMHO it's best to use
GNU style naming, eg:
static int file_operation_delete(...)
{
}
SHELL_internal_function() is a better way to go, IMO. It's already the
Wine convention, you can easily locate the function, and it helps make
sur
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:12:17 +0100, Joris Huizer wrote:
> I took out a part of the function SHFileOperationW and put it in a new
> function - please give any comments: is this the way to make this
> function more readable you want it? what is a better way of calling such
> a function?
Yes this loo
Joris Huizer wrote:
Uhm, trying to be sure all if functionally equivalent ofcourse - but how
do I run test cases (I'm using linux here)
Make sure you have a valid .wine on your system, then run:
cd dlls/shell32
WINEPREFIX=~/.wine make test
You don't need to run them on Windows unless you're modify
Mike McCormack wrote:
Joris Huizer wrote:
I took out a part of the function SHFileOperationW and put it in a new
function - please give any comments: is this the way to make this
function more readable you want it? what is a better way of calling
such a function?
Looks like a step in the right
Joris Huizer wrote:
I took out a part of the function SHFileOperationW and put it in a new
function - please give any comments: is this the way to make this
function more readable you want it? what is a better way of calling such
a function?
Looks like a step in the right direction. Anything th
Hi,
I took out a part of the function SHFileOperationW and put it in a new
function - please give any comments: is this the way to make this
function more readable you want it? what is a better way of calling such
a function?
regards,
Joris
? .patch.diff.swp
? backup-010320051808-pre-wine.tgz
?
11 matches
Mail list logo
