Just a thought: Would it be worth considering a blank macro, e.g.:
static void foo();
DECLARED_STATIC void foo() {...}
On top of not being confused with other comments around, it could be
clang-checked so it's never wrong. (And maybe eventually enforced, like
MOZ_IMPLICIT is.)
Cheers,
Gerald
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:27:17 AM UTC+11, Ryan Hunt wrote:
> Yeah, personally I have found them be useful and don't have an issue with
> keeping
> them. I just wasn't sure if that was a common experience.
>
> So for converting from C-style to C++-style, that would be:
>
> /* static */ void Foo::Bar() {
> ...
> }
>
> // static
> void Foo::Bar() {
> ...
> }
>
> I think that would be good. My one concern would be the presence of other
> C++-style
> comments before the method definition. For example [1].
>
> Ideally documentation like that should go in the header by the method
> declaration, but I
> have no idea if we consistently do that.
>
> [1]
> https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/e4b9b1084292/layout/generic/nsFrame.cpp#l1023
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Monday, January 28, 2019 12:51 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is indeed one of the cases where the reformat has made things worse.
> > I think as a couple of people have already said, we'll find that some
> > people do find these annotations useful, even if they're not always
> > consistently present.
> >
> > The path to least resistance for addressing this problem may be to convert
> > these into C++-style comments and therefore moving them into their own
> > lines. Would you be OK with that?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ehsan
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:49 PM Ryan Hunt <r...@eqrion.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Quick C++ style question.
> >>
> >> A common pattern in Gecko is for method definitions to have a comment with
> >> the
> >> 'static' or 'virtual' qualification.
> >>
> >> Before the reformat, the comment would be on it's own separate line [1].
> >> Now
> >> it's on the main line of the definition [2].
> >>
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> /* static */ void
> >> Foo::Bar() {
> >> ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> vs.
> >>
> >> /* static */ void Foo::Bar() {
> >> ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> Personally I think this now takes too much horizontal space from the main
> >> definition, and would prefer it to be either on its own line or just
> >> removed.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have an opinion on whether we still want these comments? And
> >> if so
> >> whether it makes sense to move them back to their own line.
> >>
> >> (My ulterior motive is that sublime text's indexer started failing to find
> >> these definitions after the reformat, but that should be fixed regardless)
> >>
> >> If you're interested in what removing these would entail, I wrote a regex
> >> to
> >> make the change [3].
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ryan
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/0348d472115d/layout/generic/nsFrame.cpp#l1759
> >> [2]
> >> https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/e4b9b1084292/layout/generic/nsFrame.cpp#l1756
> >> [3] https://hg.mozilla.org/try/rev/31ab3e466b6f15dcdbb1aee47edabc7c358b86f2
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
