[compiz] Coding standard
erkinbah at gmail.com
Tue Feb 3 22:14:14 PST 2009
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Dennis Kasprzyk
<onestone at compiz-fusion.org> wrote:
> In compiz++ I've made few little changes that do not follow the our previous
> coding style:
> - allow variable definition in "for" loops:
> for (int i = 0; i < foo; i++)
> In the "C" version of compiz we've tried to follow the C89 rules, but this
> is not necessary anymore and should improve readability.
> - define variables not at the top of a function:
> For references we have to define a variable at the point where it gets
> initialised. I would like the keep the "define the variables at the top of a
> function" style, but we should allow "in body" variable definition, at
> places where it improves readability of the code.
> - indent "case" statements inside of "switch" statements:
> in the "C" version of compiz we aligned the case statements at the same
> level like its switch statement:
> switch (foo)
> case foo1:
> case foo2
> I think that indenting the "case" statement is a better style here:
> switch (foo)
> case foo1:
> case foo2:
> Another style rule that I would like to add to our coding style is to
> provide a consistent system to mark differences between function local
> variables, function parameters, class member variables and global variables.
> I have already two possible solutions here:
> Solution 1:
> postfix member and global variables with a "_"
> prefix function parameter with a "_"
> Solution 2:
> prefix member variable with "m_"
> prefix global variables with "g_"
> For my diploma thesis I'm currently working on a C++ tool that already uses
> the first rule, and I've realized that it really improves readability of the
> code, because it's pretty clear where a variable is coming from. I would
> really like to get the opinions and solutions of other developers here.
I really like the naming conventions here:
- _ suffix for private member variables.
- No prefix/suffix for function parameters or local variables.
- :: operator when referring to global variables (which should really
IMHO, these should make variable scope clear enough while keeping max.
What about comments? Should we adopt a doxygen-friendly comment style
while we're at it?
> Am Dienstag 03 Februar 2009 16:46:27 schrieb Kristian Lyngstol:
>> I've been trying to come up with some good coding standards, but I've
>> realized that most of us already know most of this. So instead of trying
>> define every aspect of how we code Compiz-code, I'll try to outline some
>> the finer points. For a more complete list, you can review any of the many
>> coding-standard documents out there (For Linux, FreeBSD or any other
>> Part of this draft is designed to document the already undocumented code,
>> which means some additional work for developers working on existing code.
>> I hope the degree of work expected is acceptable.
>> Note that this is a very rough draft.
>> 1. Maintainability
>> Your code will be used by thousands of users, and it will be used even if
>> you no longer find yourself working on Compiz. Design your code with this
>> in mind. Remember that if you can get 90% of the functionality with 10% of
>> the work, that's a good thing.
>> Split your code into logical pieces. Ideally, functions span 1-3 screens
>> on a 80x25 terminal. Complex functions should strive for a smaller size,
>> while simple functions (like initialization of large structures) could be
>> quite long. If your function is one big if-elseif-elseif-...else-
>> statement, each block should be tiny or split out into separate functions.
>> Performance-wise, there's nothing stopping you from using an
>> inline-function to achieve the same performance with increased
>> To reduce complexity, clear and well defined interfaces are needed. The
>> fewer interfaces we need, the better. This goes for both core<->plugin
>> interaction, and interaction between different parts of core or a plugin.
>> If you can't avoid complexity, attempt to separate it from the rest of the
>> code as much as possible, and make sure it's well-documented in-line in
>> your code. Any special exceptions you have to make should be documented in
>> the code. Which brings us to...
>> 2. Document your code
>> Note that from now on, it is your responsibility to document code you work
>> on, even if you aren't the original author. Commits that lack the
>> documentation is likely to be revoked. There are exceptions to this, but
>> read on.
>> This does not mean writing on the wiki, writing a seperate text file or
>> publishing a book. It means that you stick a little comment in each file
>> under the license explaining very briefly what the plugin does, and if
>> there are any special tricks used. And it means that if you work on any
>> non-trivial function, make sure you stick a comment on top of it
>> what it does and how to use it, if it isn't evident.
>> If in doubt, make a comment.
>> There's a formula for when to do this, which is loosely based on
>> complexity, importance and how exposed your function is. This basically
>> means that ANY core function that is not declared static should be
>> documented. For core functions, you should also mention where you want
>> function to be used, even if it might already be obvious from
>> This is specially important with functions that are only safe or valid in
>> certain contexts.
>> As for exceptions: If you are only tweaking an existing function, for
>> instance to adjust it to an API change, it is not required to comment. If
>> you are in doubt about the code functionality, and don't wish to verify
>> with others, writing a FIXME: with a brief question/comment so somebody
>> else can pick it up, is acceptable.
>> 3. Be consistent
>> This applies to both within your own code, but also with regards to the
>> rest of the project. Use the same grammatical coding style (found on the
>> wiki), similar naming-conventions and so on.
>> 4. Don't supply useless code or options
>> Our job as developers is to create mechanism, not policy. Don't use your
>> plugin or core-code to change the world. Don't supply 5 different options
>> when you can supply one that allows for the same level of flexibility.
>> Think about Compiz' position in the bigger picture, not just the world you
>> live in.
>> If you really really really want to change the world, at the very least,
>> it as a warning, not an error!
>> 5. Expect the unexpected
>> Check return values. Check input-values for non-static code. It has a
>> negative development cost; Any time used now will be made up for down the
>> That's it so far. I really hope someone can rip this apart, since I ended
>> up trashing my more detailed ideas and threw this together in a hurry. At
>> least it should get the discussion started.
>> Specially since this is written with C, and not C++ in mind.
>> - Kristian
> compiz mailing list
> compiz at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the compiz