On Thu, 12 May 2016 17:20:49 +0200 Miguel Angel Vico <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Derek. > > Inline. > > On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:54:26 -0500 > Derek Foreman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 11/05/16 10:53 AM, Miguel Angel Vico wrote: > > > Thanks, Yong. > > > > > > Inline. > > > > > > On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:45:15 -0500 > > > Yong Bakos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On May 11, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Miguel A. Vico <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> No functional change. This patch only renames gl_renderer_create() > > >>> to gl_renderer_display_create(), which is something more > > >>> descriptive of what the function does. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Miguel A Vico Moya <[email protected]> > > >>> Reviewed-by: James Jones <[email protected]> > > >> > > >> Hi Miguel, > > >> When renaming, I suggest adjusting the indentation of subsequent > > >> arguments as well, to preserve alignment. Example noted inline > > >> below. I'm noticing this issue throughout this whole patch > > >> series. > > > > > > The thing is arguments aren't correctly aligned throughout all > > > weston code. I think the code-style rule of using hard-tabs instead > > > of spaces for indentation made things to be a bit messy, since > > > arguments are usually aligned using hard-tabs as well, but I think > > > spaces should be used instead for those cases in order to keep a > > > correct indentation regardless tab length settings of the editor. > > > > The style of this weston source code is to use hard tabs, 8 chars > > wide. It won't look right in an editor configured with any other tab > > width. > > > > I'm with Yong on this one - if you're going to rename a function, it's > > preferable to fix up the indenting at the same time for those call > > sites (even if they didn't match the style guidelines before). This > > fix-up should be done with tabs for alignment. > > > > Otherwise trivial refactoring patches would rapidly make the code look > > terrible. > > Okay, sounds sane to me too. I'll send an updated patch. > > > > > For what it's worth, I personally prefer tabs for indenting and spaces > > for alignment - > > I prefer spaces for everything, but I can live with tabs for > indenting and spaces for alignment :-) > > > but that's not what this project uses, so it's not > > what I use on this project. :) > > I double-checked code-style rules here: > > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland/tree/doc/Contributing > > and wrt alignment it only states: > > - when breaking lines with functions calls, the parameters are aligned > with the opening parentheses; > > To me, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use spaces for alignment. Hi, as with all styles, there are exceptions. When breaking lines and aligning, it often does not happen exactly at a hard-tab boundary, so use spaces for the final adjustment. However, if any single argument to a function call cannot be reasonably fit by the alignment requirement without breaking the max line length, then (at least I have) you can forget the alignment to the opening parenthesis and just indent as far as you can and align there, using hard-tabs only. Sometimes it might be preferable to use shortcut variables, sometimes not. Rules can be bent if it is necessary for style consistency and readability. After all, the whole point of a style definition is to make things more readable to everyone on average, and almost always consistency in style helps that, so people should follow the project style rather than personal preferences. And yes, Weston does not rigorously follow the defined style to the point absolutely everywhere. Sometimes it is just better to land a v6 of a patch than to go a few more review cycles to hone the style. Even reviewers can get tired of it, and we're usually short on review bandwidth anyway. Thanks, pq
pgpFMac_wXfPE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
