[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/developer: update style guidelines to include for loops with declarations

[Rostislav Pehlivanov]

On 8 November 2017 at 23:09, James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/8/2017 7:41 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> > On 8 November 2017 at 22:20, Mark Thompson <sw at jkqxz.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/11/17 22:03, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> >>> On 8 November 2017 at 21:49, Mark Thompson <sw at jkqxz.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 08/11/17 21:26, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rostislav Pehlivanov <atomnuker at gmail.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  doc/developer.texi | 3 +++
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/doc/developer.texi b/doc/developer.texi
> >>>>> index a7b4f1d737..de7d887451 100644
> >>>>> --- a/doc/developer.texi
> >>>>> +++ b/doc/developer.texi
> >>>>> @@ -132,6 +132,9 @@ designated struct initializers (@samp{struct s x
> =
> >>>> @{ .i = 17 @};});
> >>>>>  @item
> >>>>>  compound literals (@samp{x = (struct s) @{ 17, 23 @};}).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + at item
> >>>>> +for loops with variable definition (@samp{for (int i = 0; i < 8;
> >> i++)});
> >>>>> +
> >>>>>  @item
> >>>>>  Implementation defined behavior for signed integers is assumed to
> >> match
> >>>> the
> >>>>>  expected behavior for two's complement. Non representable values in
> >>>> integer
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO if you want this it would be better to just allow mixed statements
> >> and
> >>>> declarations, with this as a consequence.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you comment on what the consequences would be for platform
> support?
> >>>> It would remove support for at least one platform I know of (the TI
> ARM
> >>>> compiler).  I've no idea whether it or any other platform which would
> be
> >>>> broken has any users, though.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No, I'm kind of against mixed statements and declarations, as are many
> >>> people here. It mostly does make the code look worse and encourages
> >> overuse
> >>> of variables.
> >>
> >> I think the opposite.  I find declaration inside the loop header ugly
> and
> >> weird, while mixed declarations and code do make sense in some cases:
> e.g.
> >> pointer chasing through structures with different types - declaring all
> the
> >> variables in advance is just annoying.  (Maybe that's not strong enough
> to
> >> allow it everywhere if you believe that people will use it
> inappropriately
> >> though.)
> >>
> >>
> > I'm pretty sure its because you're not used to them yet. I'm not taking
> > this as a nak.
> > If you want mixed declaration submit a patch later on and let people
> > comment on it.
>
> It's the other way around. If you want to introduce some change, you're
> the one that needs to convince other devs it's a good change, and so
> far, two dislike it.
> You can't commit this when people are against it saying "send a patch to
> undo it later".
>


What two people, Carl hasn't said he's against it.