[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Review] Re: advdomestic.c cleanup II. (PR#1157)

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 05:59:43AM -0800, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> 
> --- Gregory Berkolaiko <gberkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  --- "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Subject:   Review of advdomestic.c9.dif
> > > Submitter: Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date:      2001/12/29
> > > Reviewer:  Ross Wetmore <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Patched cleanly to CVS-Dec27. 
> > > Compiles cleanly.
> > > Runs. Before/after server savegames were different.
> > > 
> > > Most problems are tab/line length issues, but this *is* a style not 
> > > substance patch, and it is important to get such things right. Couldn't
> > > spot why the runtime behaviour changed in quick pass. Might be
> > > hardcoded vs lookup values for some parameters with a private ruleset, 
> > > but it is probably not that critical. 
> > 
> > While we are talking about line wraps, I thought the accepted wrapping is
> > before an operator, like
> > 
> > if (doodle 
> >     && beeble) {
> >   blah = trrrrr
> >          + frrrr;
> > }
> > 
> > and NOT
> > if (doodle && 
> >     beeble) {
> >   blah = trrrrr + 
> >          frrrr;
> > }
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, distinctly I remember (it was in the bleak November) this topic
> > being discussed and an agreement being reached.  This is how it's done in
> > tech literature anyways.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Sounds fine. Informally, this was an excellent review Ross. 

Ack.

> Maybe the maintainers should make a review of this standard a
> requirement before big patches go in.

And what happens if noone reviews it? This punishes the patch author
in an unacceptable way IMHO.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb."
    -- Steven M. Haflich