On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Nicholas Nethercote < n.netherc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > > That's a mistake. Module owners don't have the authority to make up their > > own style. Who has been doing this? > > I was under the impression that they did have that authority, though I > can't find written evidence for it right now. MFBT is one example > (see mfbt/STYLE) and storage is another (see storage/style.txt). > If anyone finds any written references, let me know. AFAIK there aren't any. The storage decision was invalid, as far as I'm concerned. MFBT however is slightly special, see below. MFBT style is, in my opinion, a particularly awkward mix of Gecko and > SpiderMonkey styles, with a few unique quirks such as the indenting of > class bodies (one indent for private/protected/public, and a second > indent for everything else). I don't know why a module created less > than two years ago has its own style. > The JS engine has always been a problem when trying to enforce consistent standards across Gecko. Part of that comes from it being viewed as an independent product, much more so than any other Gecko module. Another part of that is due to the JS engine having particularly, um, "strong" module owners :-). Therefore JS has always had its own style. Since MFBT is a base for both JS and the rest of Gecko, this put MFBT in a difficult position. Creating a third style probably wasn't a good choice, though. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
