> On Mar 16, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Robin Sommer wrote:
>
> As I had mentioned to Matthias already, I don't have strong feelings
> regarding Broker coding style. Changing that to match CAF sounds
> reasonable to me, as a lot of the code's structure is driven by CAF as
> well. Jon is the one most inv
> I’m fine w/ any style or naming convention changes in order to cause
> less friction for Matthias/others.
Good to know Jon, thanks for chiming in.
My goal is to leverage clang-format to the best degree possible such
switching styles is not a big undertaking. Since no tool has (yet) good
support
As I had mentioned to Matthias already, I don't have strong feelings
regarding Broker coding style. Changing that to match CAF sounds
reasonable to me, as a lot of the code's structure is driven by CAF as
well. Jon is the one most invested into the style, so as long as he's
ok with it, I don't see
While porting Broker to the latest CAF version, I am realizing that the
current pre C++11 coding style is not very conducive. Since the
introduction of lambdas, and in particular with CAF's asynchronous and
template-heavy programming model, the Whitesmiths style isn't very
practical.
Once can cons
