Re: [dwm] less consistent codestyle pull request

On 5/13/08, Diego Biurrun <diego_AT_biurrun.de> wrote:
> > XGrabButton(dpy, AnyButton, AnyModifier, c->win, False,
> > - BUTTONMASK, GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
> > + BUTTONMASK, GrabModeAsync, GrabModeSync, None, None);
>
> Well, before it was indented to align with the XGrabButton call. This

used tabs to achieve this which is wrong

> was consistently done in at most a few places and makes the code less
> readable.

no (it was consistently space only indenting in least places)

> > 4) no extra indentation if the conditional expression of a statement
> wraps:
> > if(XGrabPointer(dpy, root, False, MOUSEMASK, GrabModeAsync,
> GrabModeAsync,
> > - None, cursor[CurResize], CurrentTime) != GrabSuccess)
> > + None, cursor[CurResize], CurrentTime) != GrabSuccess)
>
> Same here, it was aligned to make it clear what expression the next line

that was accidental since it was space indented (and thus there is no
way to guarantee that the second line starts right under '(')

if you look through the code then you see every other if wrap used this style
(maybe it's uglier but then much less code should have been modified
to make it consistent)

> Putting this at the same indentation depth as the if indicates that it
> is a new block after the if. Contrary to what your indentation
> indicates, this is not the case.

no, it indicates that it belongs to the if statement (as in every
other places in the code where this situation occures)

1 space indentation would mean that the second line is part of the code
block after the if, so the only possible style i can agree with is
either 0 space or 2 spaces (3 is too much and tab indentation is not
consistent with other parts of the code)

> I think you have misunderstood the rules the code was following.

that can be true
Received on Tue May 13 2008 - 18:09:02 UTC