Agreed, the proposed code style is fine with me.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Campbell Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > Yesterday I went over missing break's in switch statements and found a > surprising number of real bugs/errors in code (over 10), some rather > bad errors like boids 'random' behavior option, falling through to > 'average'. > > We didn't yet decide on details for switch() statements in our current > style-code [1], but I think doing so would help avoid more mistakes > like this as well as making code easier to follow. > > Most simple errors are not hard to spot errors but some code grows > over time - we had a mistake with a switch nested inside a switch for > eg. > > Note that this proposal is mostly what we do now anyway, so no large > code cleanup commits needed for this and proposal is minimal. > > > Proposal: > > - be consistent with placement of break, indent and include within braces. > > - intentional fall-through after statements in a case _must_ be commented. > (however successive case statements with no code can go without comments). > > > Heres an image:[2] and text:[3] of what I think is reasonable and an > example of whats not below. > > For an example of mixed up 'break' placement in current code, see > BKE_object_minmax in object.c > > > [1]: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Doc/CodeStyle > [2]: http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/bad_switch_example.png > [3]: http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/bad_switch_example.c > > -- > - Campbell > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
