Re: GNUstep Coding Standard Additions

[Riccardo]

Hello,

On Sunday, April 24, 2005, at 06:49 AM, Sheldon Gill wrote:

> There are some things which don't seem clear from the coding standards.
there always are,

> The NeXT standard is GSFunction() pretty much everywhere.
> The GNU standard is gnu_function().
> Both are followed internally in different places.
I would follow the NeXT style almost everywhere. For consistency.
By the way, when I first turned to objective-C I was essentially pleased 
that my own informal coding standard was so close to it. SO maybe I am 
biased.

> For ObjC object instances, the issue is less clear but should be 
> "anObject" generally. What if it's a single word? "Object" or "object"?
I'd use object. It is an instance, instances start smallcaps.

> static int word_count; // GNU style
> static int wordCount;  // NeXT style
>
> Both methods are used internally. I feel we should standardise on the 
> GNU style.

why? I'd use NeXT style. It is internal, so let's use our style!
>

> Conditional compilation
> =======================
>
> In trying to accommodate differences between platforms and particular 
> build requirements there is a lot of code which is conditionally 
> compiled using the pre-processor.
>
> I recommend standarising on
>
> #ifdef REQ_DEF
>
> instead of
>
> #if defined(REQ_DEF)
>
> We should also prefer positive conditional tests over negative ones. 
> Hence
>
> #ifdef REQDEF
>   {block A}
> #else
>   {block B}
> #endif
>
> is preferred over
>
> #ifndef REQDEF
>   {block B}
> #else
>   {block A}
> #endif

I would say the preferred method would be that the first clause should 
be what is thought "standard" or "default". In case of doubt though, 
positive is recommended.

> In cases where the conditional block is reasonably large there must be 
> comments at the appropriate points:
>
> #ifdef REQDEF
>   {block A}
> #else
>   {block B}
> #endif /* REQDEF */

I would always put this if it is more than a couple of lines. Putting it 
since the beginning makes sure that even after further coding which 
might involve adding more lines, the end is clearly marked.


> Tabs vs Spaces
> ==============
>
> Its an age old debate but my experience is that tabs confuse things 
> more than they are worth. Many programmer editors today support using 
> the tab key to insert spaces rather than a tab character. They also 
> support block indent/unindent.
>
> GNUstep uses the GNU 2/4 character indenting convention which doesn't 
> match the use of 8 character indents most of the time.
>
> So IMHO using tabs isn't particularly convenient. Use of tabs can also 
> confuse searches and diffs.
>
> Hence, I move that use of tabs be dropped. All in favour?

I don't know what openstep did. Unfortunately many editors, like the 
all-time favourite VIM and VI, tend to be tabs-friendly making a mess. 
Nedit can be taught very conveniently to behave both ways very woell.
Apple's code-editor inside IB has both options and comes in default with 
4 spaces and I find it very reasonable, but I really wonder what NeXT, 
OpenStep and Apple (objc/cocoa) standards are and if they chnaged.

-R