[FFmpeg-soc] [soc]: r3884 - amr/amrnbdec.c

[Diego Biurrun]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 07:59:52PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 02:03:03PM +0000, Robert Swain wrote:
> > 2008/12/15 Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de>:
> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 01:13:11PM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote:
> > >> Robert Swain wrote:
> > >> > 2008/12/15 Robert Swain <robert.swain at gmail.com>:
> > >> >
> > >> >> 2008/12/15 diego <subversion at mplayerhq.hu>:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> Log:
> > >> >>> K&R function declaration and whitespace cosmetics
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --- amr/amrnbdec.c      (original)
> > >> >>> +++ amr/amrnbdec.c      Mon Dec 15 11:13:50 2008
> > >> >>> @@ -126,8 +126,9 @@ static int amrnb_decode_init(AVCodecCont
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> -enum Mode decode_bitstream(AVCodecContext *avctx, uint8_t *buf, int buf_size, enum Mode *speech_mode) {
> > >> >>> -
> > >> >>> +enum Mode decode_bitstream(AVCodecContext *avctx, uint8_t *buf, int buf_size,
> > >> >>> +                           enum Mode *speech_mode)
> > >> >>> +{
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> Urgh. I'm happy with the line breaks but I don't tend to like the
> > >> >> opening { on a new line. I thought that was a GNU thing not a K&R
> > >> >> thing.
> > >> >
> > >> > Nope, it is K&R. Hmm, then who likes them on the same line other than me? :)
> > >>
> > >> I do, it is more readable to me. More code per loc.
> > >
> > > With that kind of reasoning, we can also prefer
> > >
> > >    if (condition) statement;
> > >
> > > over
> > >
> > >    if (condition)
> > >        statement
> > >
> > > and similar.
> > >
> > > But this discussion is completely pointless IMO.  The rules have been
> > > set in http://ffmpeg.org/general.html#SEC24:
> > >
> > >  Indent size is 4. The presentation is the one specified by 'indent -i4
> > >  -kr -nut'. The TAB character is forbidden outside of Makefiles as is any
> > >  form of trailing whitespace.
> > >
> > > Now it's clear that each person will dislike some part of K&R style and
> > > prefer to do things in other ways.  But the nature of compromises is
> > > exactly that: You accept a few things you may not be terribly fond of
> > > and you get a uniform style in exchange.
> > 
> > Mmm. There are a fair few instances of { being on the same line as the
> > function declaration so I guess you'll have to do those too. I still
> > don't like it but it is personal preference and if that's what's been
> > agreed, I won't argue about something like this.
> > 
> > If it hadn't been agreed project-wide, I would have preferred to have
> > been consulted about the changes before they were committed
> > considering it's my code. Even if I haven't touched it for a while, I
> > am still active.
> 
> i dont remember { placement for functions being discussed or agreed upon.

Set by Fabrice before your time?  The coding rules are very clear:

  The presentation is the one specified by 'indent -i4 -kr -nut'. 

This includes clear rules about brace placement in function definitions.

> and i prefer them on the same line as well. Though i am not strongly
> opposed to following K&R, just that if most people prefer them like we
> do, that following K&R just because of it would be silly.

I think following some well-known style is advisable.  Everybody will
have to make some compromises for this.

Anyway, this is not the best place to discuss this.

Diego