> On March 15, 2016, 3:18 a.m., Ben Mahler wrote: > > src/exec/exec.cpp, line 206 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/44650/diff/3/?file=1297454#file1297454line206> > > > > This doesn't seem like the style we use for unused arguments..? > > Joerg Schad wrote: > There are examples for this in the codebase (see openssl.cpp). I guess > the Google Styleguide > (https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Function_Declarations_and_Definitions) > states "Unused parameters that are obvious from context may be omitted:" and > " Unused parameters that might not be obvious should comment". So I would > agree that in this case it is obvious and hence could be omited.
I would vote for consistency and settle on either omitting the name or enclosing it in `/* */`. I'm fine with following the google guide, but it looks like we should agree on this first. Discarding for now. - Alexander ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44650/#review123587 ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 14, 2016, 5:45 p.m., Alexander Rukletsov wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/44650/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated March 14, 2016, 5:45 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Ben Mahler and Joerg Schad. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > See summary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/exec/exec.cpp dec7e8814e7151718d1c89381458753f2e22739e > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/44650/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > The complete chain was tested. See https://reviews.apache.org/r/44662/. > > > Thanks, > > Alexander Rukletsov > >
