[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] base_real_map_distance (PR#1049)

["jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <dbsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Originally to: David Bryan Smith

  by provide.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5b5)
  with ESMTP id 6257078 for dbsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:12:27 -0500
Received: from pi (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by pi.glockenspiel.complete.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
        id 40C373B9DF; Wed,  5 Dec 2001 14:11:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: with LISTAR (v1.0.0; list freeciv-dev); Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:11:28 
-0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: virtual-freeciv.org-freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: from out007pub.verizon.net (out007pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.107])
        by pi.glockenspiel.complete.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D325E3B854
        for <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed,  5 Dec 2001 14:11:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from verizon.net (pool-141-158-105-237.pitt.east.verizon.net 
[141.158.105.237])
        by out007pub.verizon.net  with ESMTP
        for <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>; id fB5JDGN29753
        Wed, 5 Dec 2001 13:13:16 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <3C0E7089.3060905@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 14:07:53 -0500
From: Jason Short <vze2zq63@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011014
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Freeciv List <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] base_real_map_distance (PR#1049)
References: <20011202193601.GR11576@xxxxxxxxxxx> 






05125913.74523.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

0011205171822.A13270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-archive-position: 5091
X-listar-version: Listar v1.0.0
Sender: freeciv-dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Errors-To: freeciv-dev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-original-sender: vze2zq63@xxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
X-list: freeciv-dev

Raimar Falke wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 04:59:13AM -0800, Raahul Kumar wrote:
>>--- Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>Thing I have problem with is:
>>>+     dx = abs(dx), dy = abs(dy);
>>>I think it should be rather
>>>+     dx = abs(dx); dy = abs(dy);
>>>What do you think?

> From the language syntax point of view both version are the same. I
> know that Ross sometimes prefer the , version. It looks like also
> Jason prefer it (Jason: under which conditions?). So I would like to
> add this to the style guide questionnaire:
>
>
>  <some number>
>  This isn't about initialization!
>
> /* A */
>   x = punit->x, y = punit->y;
>
> /* B */
>   x = punit->x;
>   y = punit->y;
>
> Something like
>   x = punit->x; y = punit->y;
> will not work because it will be broken up by indent.

I do not really have a preference.  But I don't find the comma notation
unreadable at all, and I guess Ross's ways have rubbed off a little.  It
never really occurred to me that this might be a problem for other people.

jason