[Spice-devel] Function definition style

[Victor Toso]

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:54:26PM -0400, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
> Hi,
>   I noted that in recent patches we started using this style:
> 
> static void
> function_name(type name)
> {
> }
> 
> instead of the "classic" (in our code)
> 
> static void function_name(type name)
> {
> }
> 
> Personally I like the first and I don't complain (and other people
> seems to not complain too) however sometimes it does not fit as the
> other style is used.
>
> Do we agree we can use both styles or we just didn't pay much
> attention?

The later? I'm often writing functions as the first style approach which
is not common style in spice*. For the same reason, I don't pay much
attention of that on reviews.

I would not mind to keep both styles.. or we should really write a hook
to start checking for code style because this is quite common mistake...

Cheers

> 
> Frediano
> _______________________________________________
> Spice-devel mailing list
> Spice-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/spice-devel/attachments/20161010/3fadb958/attachment.sig>