Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:19:43 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man9 style.9 Message-ID: <20020822131207.D2039-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200208211833.g7LIXAv0001530@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:58:22 -0700 (PDT), Warner Losh <imp@FreeBSD.org> said: > > > Suggest that function prototypes in kernel headers be alphabetical, > > unless there's a compelling reason to deviate. > > It should probably suggest that prototypes visible to user programs be > first blocked in order of increasing namespace before being > alphabetized. It is more readable to have: > > #if FOO_AND_BAR_VISIBLE > int bar(...); > int foo(...); > #endif > > #if BAZ_VISIBLE > int baz(...); > #endif > > #if FOO_BAR_AND_QUUX_VISIBLE > int quux(...); > #endif > > ...rather than: > > #if FOO_AND_BAR_VISIBLE > int bar(...); > #endif > #if BAZ_VISIBLE > int baz(...); > #endif > #if FOO_AND_BAR_VISIBLE > int foo(...); > #if FOO_BAR_AND_QUUX_VISIBLE > int quux(...); > #endif > #endif I mostly disagree. I find the former slightly more readable (except for the nested ifdef in the latter). POSIX.1-200x-draft7 lists things in alphabetical order within headers and uses markup like "XSI" (and highlighing in the pdf version?) to show extensions. This keeps related things together provided the function names are well chosen. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020822131207.D2039-100000>