This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: socket timeout patch
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Eric Blake <ebb9 at email dot byu dot edu>
- Cc: Nic Ferrier <nferrier at tf1 dot tapsellferrier dot co dot uk>, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 17 Dec 2001 17:35:49 -0700
- Subject: Re: socket timeout patch
- References: <E16EHUx-0000RO-00@tf1.tapsellferrier.co.uk> <3C17D655.E997D5A6@email.byu.edu>
- Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Blake <ebb9@email.byu.edu> writes:
Eric> I thought that the libstdc++ coding standards applied to both
Eric> the native C++ code and the Java code in libjava, and in the
Eric> parent Classpath project; except that naming conventions in Java
Eric> follow Sun's suggestions. Am I wrong?
I've never read the libstdc++ coding standards.
I don't think we've ever formally adopted them.
Eric> 03. Function names and parentheses
Eric> void mangle()
Eric> -NOT-
Eric> void mangle () // wrong
Eric> However, I've seen both formatting styles in libjava (and in
Eric> Classpath); it would be nice to come to a consensus. Which
Eric> format is official?
I always thought the rule was we had a space for function calls and
all decls, but no space for method invocations. This is a weird rule
though. I'm probably the source of most of the "mangle ()"
violations, since I've always liked the space. However, I agree if
we're going to have a standard we all ought to follow it. Perhaps we
should work out an actual document. That means involving Classpath.
Ideally whatever we come up with could be enforced by some java indent
program.
Tom