On 15 June 2016 at 22:16, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: > Jose Fonseca <jfons...@vmware.com> writes: > >> On 15/06/16 18:13, Emil Velikov wrote: >>> On 15 June 2016 at 15:58, Brian Paul <bri...@vmware.com> wrote: >>>> Why is this change needed? Does some compiler balk at 1.f? >>>> >>> Since I'm the one 'to blame' for these patches I'll answer - consistency. >>> These are the only remaining cases where the trailing zero was missing :-) >>> >>> -Emil >> >> Although I'm not one of them myself, some people prefer the short ".f" >> instead of ".0f". So, unless we all plant to make a point out of >> avoiding ".f" when writing new code, and call it out on patch reviews, >> this consistency will be short lived. >> >> That is, I think that attempts to standardize minor cosmetic issues is a >> distraction. > > It's hard to express just how much I agree with this statement. > Nitpicking minor cosmetic variations (not even problems) drags a project > down. Interesting, I don't recall anyone speaking negatively as others have sent trivial patches that provides consistency to the project. Guess I missed them somehow ?
It's a bit sad that you guys find this as a distraction/deterrent/etc. but as you wish. -Emil P.S. Ensuring new code matches coding standards can be rather easily enforced with git hooks. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
