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

[Diego Biurrun]

On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 03:03:49PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 01:34:35PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> it does, but
> 1. as said { placement of functions hasnt been discussed as far as i know
>    (you arent saying it has been discussed ...)
> 
> 2. it hasnt been agreed upon, rather above seems more a guideline choosen
>    by fabrice. And in that fabrice did not enforce it AFAIK, so raising
>    some fineprint of a complex guidline now to a strict law that should be
>    followed letter by letter seems a little strange to me.

Nobody is doing that, the files I edited are not following K&R style
strictly, before or after my changes.

You have always treated the coding rules as a binding document
even though large parts of it have not been agreed upon, much
less by most of the developers, some parts it seems, not even
by you..

> > > 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.
> 
> following the style that most people working on ffmpeg prefer means fewer
> compromises than following one out of 3 well known styles.
> Thats simply because the style of fewest compromises is likely not exactly
> one of the 3.

I doubt it.

> Loosing good developers because of some fineprint in some style seems
> a bad choice ...

I see no risk of this happening now nor in the future.

Diego