From: Kevin Ballard Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 17:07:50 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add support for GIT_CEILING_DIRS Message-ID: <71122C3E-67C8-42B0-BF95-D907718F9A57@sb.org> In-Reply-To: On May 14, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Wed, 14 May 2008, Kevin Ballard wrote: > >> On May 14, 2008, at 3:23 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >>>> @@ -414,6 +415,37 @@ const char *setup_git_directory_gently(int >>>> *nongit_ok) >>>> if (!getcwd(cwd, sizeof(cwd)-1)) >>>> die("Unable to read current working directory"); >>>> >>>> + // Compute min_offset based on GIT_CEILING_DIRS. >>> >>> We do not like C99 style comments. Remember, there are people who >>> compile >>> Git on something else than the super-latest Linux with cutting- >>> edge GCC. >> >> Out of curiosity, what environment these days doesn't allow C99 >> comments? > > On an SGI/IRIX machine I was working some time ago, GCC was too big > for my > quota. And the admin was not willing to install it. > > But I have to wonder: why argue something as C99 comments, when it > is _no > problem_ whatsoever to replace them with C89-style comments, > especially > given the fact that this makes our source code more consistent and > thus > easier on the eye? Oh I wasn't intending to argue, I just was curious. I'm always happy to adopt the style of the surrounding code (except when people use the One True Brace Style, ugh). Granted, I personally prefer C99 comments for one-liners and C89 comments for multi-liners. It's especially helpful if the comment goes off the right side of the screen, because I don't have to hunt for the closing */ (source code highlighting generally solves this issue, but I don't always read code in an environment that can understand it, e.g. email). -Kevin Ballard -- Kevin Ballard http://kevin.sb.org kevin@sb.org http://www.tildesoft.com