Re: [ft-devel] non-standard commenting in tttables.h

[Hisashi T Fujinaka]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> > Thanks!  I guess I have other questions as well. Some functions are
> > marked on the previous line with "<Function>" and other are marked
> > with "@function". Is one more correct than the other?
>
> We have two styles:
>
>   /***********************/
>   /*                     */
>   /* <Foo>               */
>   /*   ...               */
>
> and
>
>   /***********************
>    *
>    * @foo:
>    *   ...
>
> I prefer the former (which is the old one -- many people think it is
> too clumsy), while David prefers the latter (which is the new one and
> obviously `lighter').  It basically makes no difference since both
> formats are supported by our `docmaker' tool to create the
> HTML-documentation.

Thanks. I was just using "grep" to find function names and saw some
disrepancies. I guess there aren't that many using the latter format
quite yet, at least for functions.

I did find some discrepancies:
ftsysmem.h doesn't put the function name on the the following line for
ft_memory_new and ft_memory_destroy,

cache/ftccmap.h uses a mixed format in FTC_CMapCache_New and
FTC_CMapCache_Lookup,

ftcache.h uses a mixed format in FTC_CMapCache_New and
FTC_CMapCache_Lookup,

fttrigon.h has a lot of mixed format function comments,

freetype.h has a mixed format function commen for FT_Stream_OpenGzip.

I'm sure not many people care that much, and honestly the only ones that
are really bothersome to me are the two in ftsysmem.h (and I don't know
if I even need to go poking around in there.)

--
Hisashi T Fujinaka - address@hidden
BSEE(6/86) + BSChem(3/95) + BAEnglish(8/95) + MSCS(8/03) + $2.50 = latte