Preview of astyle-kdelibs changes up in a branch (was: Re: [Port blocker] Re: [Kexi-devel] RFC: plan for starting the Qt5/KF5 port)

[Elvis Stansvik]

2015-03-06 8:25 GMT+01:00 Dmitry Kazakov <dimula73 at gmail.com>:

> Hi!
>
> I looked through the patch and updated the google docs:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jhq6oXuXKvTilJhcoS6FVKO7yYRu2yCgBS9ojhc2QRU/edit#
>
> The changes which I believe we must fix before applying it to master:
>
> 1) Inlined functions. They are not covered by the KDE style policy, so I
> believe we should follow Qt- and KDE- style of handling inlined functions
> with the opening brace at the signature line. It applies only to the
> functions declared *and* defined inside the class itself.
>

I can't see Qt following this rigorously. Here's an example of both styles
mixed in the same file:

   https://github.com/qtproject/qtbase/blob/dev/src/corelib/io/qfileinfo_p.h

Why not try to be consistent in Calligra and use the same style everywhere
(inline or not inline)? Less rules to remember.


>
> 2) "Wrong alignment of function parameters". See the corresponding topic
> in the google docs. Astyle seems to be a bit broken here, because in some
> places it applies correctly, and in some not. The units that are always
> wrong are constructors.
>
> 3) "Indentation of multiline conditionals is wrong". See the corresponding
> topic in the google docs. Should be 8 spaces instead of 12.
>
> I think we should commit the patch only after we fix at least these three
> issues.
>
> (optional)
> 4) I really feel we must *not* follow one-line-if-always-with-braces rule.
> 'if (some_stuff) return 0' is perfectly ok in my opinion. But this is my
> opinion only and I cannot block the patch with that. I only search for
> support from other developers in this topic.
>

I have no strong opinion on this. But isn't the point that we pick a rule
and stick to it? The one-line-if-always-with-braces rule has been in effect
in Calligra for quite a while. It also has the benefit of 1) less rules to
remember, 2) consistent with kdelibs.

Regards,
Elvis


>
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Boudewijn Rempt <boud at valdyas.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, C. Boemann wrote:
>>
>>  As i already like the previous results this is just an improvement
>>> afaict.
>>>
>>> However, as a pure enhancement, do you know how difficult it would be to
>>> reformat all ctor initialize statements to be like:
>>>
>>> class::class()
>>>    : super()
>>>    , member(val)
>>> {
>>>
>>> I know it would require a patch, just wondering how much work it would
>>> be. If you don't want to spend time on it we can keep it as it is - but we
>>> have like 3 different styles in use so it would be nice to clear it up too,
>>>
>>>
>> I would love that as well. This style of initializer lists is the easiest
>> to maintain.
>>
>> Boudewijn
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> calligra-devel mailing list
>> calligra-devel at kde.org
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dmitry Kazakov
>
> _______________________________________________
> calligra-devel mailing list
> calligra-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/calligra-devel/attachments/20150306/cfbf1f65/attachment.htm>