> 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
> 
>

Reply via email to