I'm reverting it because I shouldn't have committed it without some kind of consensus from X devs. If somebody else wants to champion it, they're welcome. --Bart
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Arnaud Fontaine <[email protected]> wrote: > Bart Massey <[email protected]> writes: > >> You're right, of course. There is a small cost associated with >> learning to read code written in a new style. Usually when I'm reading >> code, I find that I'm as interested in knowing what value a variable >> might hold as I am in its type, and I'm happy if I don't have to >> scroll back too far for the local context that tells me these things. >> Placing the declaration at the definition and near the first use helps >> me to meet these goals. >> >> At any rate, I would hardly presume to set style for X---what do I >> know? I'll revert Arnaud's patch, and we'll go back to enforcing the >> community consensus. My apologies for any disruption I've caused. > > Well, considering that it's already used in many places and that at > least X server specifies some mandatory C extensions[0] (from [1]), > including interleaved code and declarations, I still don't understand > why this patch should be reverted... > > -- > Arnaud Fontaine > > [0] http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/tree/doc/c-extensions > [1] http://www.x.org/wiki/CodingStyle/ > _______________________________________________ > [email protected]: X.Org development > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
