2009/12/10 John Abd-El-Malek
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Evan Stade wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon wrote:
>>>
In essence:
return DoWork(&foo)
#if defined(OS_POSIX)
&&
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Evan Stade wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon wrote:
>>
>>> In essence:
>>>
>>> return DoWork(&foo)
>>> #if defined(OS_POSIX)
>>> && DoWork(&posix_specific)
>>> #endif
>>> ;
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon wrote:
>
>> In essence:
>>
>> return DoWork(&foo)
>> #if defined(OS_POSIX)
>> && DoWork(&posix_specific)
>> #endif
>> ; // <-- Lint complains about this guy
>>
>
> I'd prefer this:
>
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Shall be Unnamed <@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Peter Kasting
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Jacob Mandelson
>>> wrote:
>>>
If something extra in an
There are cases where you'll want to flout the linter, but this isn't
one of them. Scott and Peter have both posted viable workarounds that
don't hamper readability (and in fact improve it relative to the
snippet Jonathan is asking about.) Personally, I prefer Scott's, but
Peter's is good too.
D
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Jacob Mandelson
> wrote:
>
>> If something extra in an expression is a common case, I've sometimes
>> seen it done like:
>>return DoWork(&foo) POSIX_ONLY(&& DoWork(&posix_specific));
>> where POSIX_ONL
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Jacob Mandelson wrote:
> If something extra in an expression is a common case, I've sometimes
> seen it done like:
>return DoWork(&foo) POSIX_ONLY(&& DoWork(&posix_specific));
> where POSIX_ONLY will expand to nothing or its argument.
> It's ugly, but compact.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:14:32AM -0800, Scott Hess wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon wrote:
> >> In essence:
> >> return DoWork(&foo)
> >> #if defined(OS_POSIX)
> >> && DoWork(&posix_specific)
> >> #endif
> >
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon wrote:
>> In essence:
>> return DoWork(&foo)
>> #if defined(OS_POSIX)
>> && DoWork(&posix_specific)
>> #endif
>> ; // <-- Lint complains about this guy
>
> I'd prefer this:
> #if def
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon wrote:
>
>
> 2009/12/10 Brett Wilson
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, John Abd-El-Malek
>> wrote:
>> > btw I searched the code, almost all the instances are in code from
>> different
>> > repositories, like v8, gtest, gmock. I counted only 17
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Dixon wrote:
> In essence:
>
> return DoWork(&foo)
> #if defined(OS_POSIX)
> && DoWork(&posix_specific)
> #endif
> ; // <-- Lint complains about this guy
>
I'd prefer this:
#if defined(OS_POSIX)
return DoWork(&foo) && DoWork(&posix_specific)
2009/12/10 Brett Wilson
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, John Abd-El-Malek
> wrote:
> > btw I searched the code, almost all the instances are in code from
> different
> > repositories, like v8, gtest, gmock. I counted only 17 instances in
> > Chrome's code.
>
>
> Most of the Chrome NOLINTs loo
If there are consistent patterns of NOLINT usage, I can suppress the
whole error class.
Also, the linter is only automatically run on chrome/ and app/, IIRC.
-- Elliot
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Brett Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
>> btw I search
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 PM, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
> btw I searched the code, almost all the instances are in code from different
> repositories, like v8, gtest, gmock. I counted only 17 instances in
> Chrome's code.
Most of the Chrome NOLINTs look like the're around ifdefs, where the
ifd
btw I searched the code, almost all the instances are in code from different
repositories, like v8, gtest, gmock. I counted only 17 instances in
Chrome's code.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Evan Stade wrote:
> I didn't even know that I could disable the linter like that. Good to
> know---doze
I didn't even know that I could disable the linter like that. Good to
know---dozens more NOLINTs coming up!
Jokes aside, I agree the linter seems a little draconian, especially as it
seems to apply to all code in the files you touch, not just your changes.
-- Evan Stade
--
Chromium Developers m
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM, John Abd-El-Malek wrote:
> Lately I've been seeing more and more // NOLINT added to the code. It's
> great that people are running lint to make sure that they're following the
> guidelines, but I personally find adding comments or gibberish to our code
> for tools
Agreed. There are certain situations where conforming to lint
expectations leads to messier code. I just checked in a CL that
contains a section of lines longer than 80 cols. Trying to wrap these
lines would make the definitions unreadable. It's one thing to have
lint report zero errors; it's a
Lately I've been seeing more and more // NOLINT added to the code. It's
great that people are running lint to make sure that they're following the
guidelines, but I personally find adding comments or gibberish to our code
for tools that are supposed to make the code quality better happy/more
consi
19 matches
Mail list logo
