On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 22 Feb, Manish Singh wrote:
> > True, although we have a couple other inconsistencies already. The
> > coding style needs to be the same as the rest of gimp though.
> I tried to bring it as near as possible. Of course a lot things could
> be better....
I noticed two obvious differences in your code: it does not use two
spaces for indentation (the default in Emacs and the recommended GNU
style) and there is no space between the function names and the
opening parenthesis for the arguments. I suggest that you use a
recent version of GNU indent to process your source code and re-indent
everything automatically, or that you use Emacs with the default
settings (no modifications in a ~/.emacs file) and call indent-region
on the whole file.
I did not like the GNU style at first (especially the space before the
opening parenthesis) but now I understand that it is very important to
keep a consistent coding style in each project, because it keeps the
code manageable and maintainable. So I always use whatever coding
style is recommended for the each project, even if this means that I
have to format my patches differently for the Gimp and for a Linux
driver, for instance. Since the Gimp uses the GNU style, I think that
it is important to follow the GNU coding guidelines faithfully.
While we are on the subject of coding style, there are two areas of
the Gimp that are not using a consistent coding style: the Script-Fu
scripts and, to a lesser extent, the Perl scripts. Is there a
recommended style for these?
> > It's not that much code, and does fix a gaping hole in the i18n
> > framework for plugins not distributed with gimp. Especially if we want
> > 1.2 to last a while..
> That's absolutely right.
Yup! Me too (tm).