On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:18:44AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:20:17AM -0400, Damien Riegel wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 03:51:04PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > > Some things I would like to see changed in your next patch:
> > >
> > > * The structs in imap.c, mbox.c, mh.c, pop.c still have
> > > the wrong style ("struct {" instead of "struct\n{")
> >
> > A line ending with "=" just felt so weird that I left it. Anyway, fixed
> > it for new version.
>
> Oh, wait I think you have a point. Sorry, please feel free to leave it
> that way for the assignments. I think it would look funny too.
>
> > > * I would also like to see those structs moved to near the top of the
> > > various files, rather than being buried in the middle of them.
> > > (Yes, this means you'll have to add some function prototypes for the
> > > static functions.)
> > >
> > > * Lastly, I'd like the
> > > extern struct mx_ops mx_*_ops;
> > > declarations moved inside mx.h, pop.h, and imap.h.
> >
> > Do you mind if I move the structs to the very bottom instead? As I added
> > extern struct mx_ops mx_*_ops in the headers, there is no declaration
> > issue, and this way there is no need to add function prototypes.
> > This seems to be the common practice in many FOSS projects (like Linux
> > drivers, ffmpeg, tig...).
>
> Okay that's fine too.
>
> I'll push this patch set later on today.
Not sure I understand this correctly. Don't you want me to make a v3
with the suggested changes?
--
Damien
