On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 09:26:13PM +0000, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Rostislav Pehlivanov <atomnu...@gmail.com>
> ---
> doc/developer.texi | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/developer.texi b/doc/developer.texi
> index a7b4f1d737..de7d887451 100644
> --- a/doc/developer.texi
> +++ b/doc/developer.texi
> @@ -132,6 +132,9 @@ designated struct initializers (@samp{struct s x = @{ .i
> = 17 @};});
> @item
> compound literals (@samp{x = (struct s) @{ 17, 23 @};}).
>
> +@item
> +for loops with variable definition (@samp{for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++)});
> +I'm fine with this and would be happy to update all the code I maintain in FFmpeg to follow this pattern. But I have a few questions/reservations: - what does it imply for mixed statements and declarations? If we still do not allow them, how are you going to make the compiler reject them but not the for (int ... ) form? Also, allowing this but not the mixed statements and declarations means this is a style decision and not a technical one anymore. - are we going to accept all kind of patches to change the coding style all over the codebase? - this require a Changelog entry as it has a technical impact (which could be considered negligible). Overall, I'd enjoy this change being accepted (even along mixed statements and declarations). [...] -- Clément B.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
