Re: [RFC/PATCH] CodingGuidelines: spell out post-C89 rules

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 17, 2019, 16:05 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqr26o1wa1.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGyf7-EWuW5NX27YPeSb9+5iMU0pftUs-WxvUH1NqpGeNsXESg@mail.gmail.com>

Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com> writes:

Show 34 quoted lines

> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:21 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Even though we have been sticking to C89, there are a few handy
>> features we borrow from more recent C language in our codebase after
>> trying them in weather balloons and saw that nobody screamed.
>>
>> Spell them out.
>>
>> While at it, extend the existing variable declaration rule a bit to
>> read better with the newly spelled out rule for the for loop.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/CodingGuidelines | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> index 1169ff6c8e..53903b14c8 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> +++ b/Documentation/CodingGuidelines
>> @@ -195,10 +195,24 @@ For C programs:
>>     by e.g. "echo DEVELOPER=1 >>config.mak".
>>
>>   - We try to support a wide range of C compilers to compile Git with,
>> -   including old ones. That means that you should not use C99
>> -   initializers, even if a lot of compilers grok it.
>> +   including old ones. That means that you should not use certain C99
>> +   features, even if your compiler groks it.  There are a few
>> +   exceptions:
>>
>> +   . since early 2012 with e1327023ea, we have been using an enum
>> +     definition whose last element is followed by a comma.
>
> Is there a significance to the leading . here versus a leading - below?

Absolutely.

    - Item 1's description

    - Item 2's description
      . subitem a of 2
      . subitem b of 2
      These two subitems are exceptions.

    - Item 3's description

was what I meant.