Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:27:57 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>, 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: <20020822181151.S2727-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20020822014845.D62302@espresso.q9media.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: > Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> writes: > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > > > > > 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). > > Aren't you agreeing then? Oops. I meant "I find the former slightly less readable". > > 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. > > Without seperate namespace blocks you end up with many duplicate > conditionals which can clutter things. For instance, try rearranging > <string.h> for alphabetical order. This might be the exception since > most of the function names share the same beginning. It would give about 12 small ifdefed sections instead of 3 larger ones. There's a lot of clutter either way, but I think things are easier to read if things are ordered as they would be in a FreeBSD standard instead of split up according to which standard they are in. It's only when you are writing for a particular non-FreeBSD standard that you mostly don't want to read about what is not in it. 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?20020822181151.S2727-100000>