Duncan Gibson wrote:
> Gerry:
>> I read something recently with regard to the FLTK coding standard.
>> I believe there was a comment that indicated the displeasure of
>> many developers with the current coding standard. It went on to
>> cite the reason for the fact that no change had been made due to
>> the lack of a volunteer to make the changes.
>
> Although I don't like the current coding standard, I would be
> rather reluctant for a wholesale change just for the sake of it.
Right -- I think the tendency to want to bring all the code
into compliance is a knee jerk on first entry to the code.
Once you get in there and start writing, you'll find that
most of the code is in compliance with the standard, and
the few bits that are just an aberrations that can be fixed
on the fly.
All new code has followed the standard, and old code is
slowly brought into compliance.
We usually catch code compliance issues by watching what
comes in via the fltk.commit diffs newsgroup diffs.
I'm not sure what the issues were with the coding standard
itself; I have no problems with it at this point. The indenting
I found made sense for keeping the code concise, and it's
fairly easy to get used to and has become second nature,
even though my own personal coding style is different.
I've done a bit of code reformatting myself on this last pass
at 1.3.x, bringing much of the utf8 contributed code into
compliance with the FLTK standard.
The goal was to only force into compliance code that was being
generated/managed by FLTK coders; code from external sources
(other open source toolkits) that used a different coding standard
were kept unmodified to ensure diffs against new releases from those
external sources were easy to read.
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
