On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 7:10 PM <gsquel...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> 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.)
>
Yeah, that could be a future alternative, but it would require someone to
do the hard work of implementing the required static analysis and landing
it. I think Ryan's proposal will probably simplify that process somewhat
by making it possible to mass-replace a bunch of "// static" comments with
"DECLARED_STATIC" or some such, but I don't want to hold the good solution
here for a perfect solution in the future. I would personally be OK for
these two to happen incrementally.
Would you mind filing a bug for this please?
Thanks,
Ehsan
> 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
>
--
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
