[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NSBrowser cleanup
From: |
Serg Stoyan |
Subject: |
Re: NSBrowser cleanup |
Date: |
Thu, 1 Jul 2004 00:43:17 +0300 |
Hello Richard,
> On 30 Jun 2004, at 21:23, Serg Stoyan wrote:
>
> > Hello Richard,
> >
> >> On 30 Jun 2004, at 18:22, Serg Stoyan wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've done some formatting inside NSBrowser.m also. The basic
> >>> principles of this formatting are:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Methods are placed in order specified in OpenStep specification.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Methods are grouped by activity prepending with comments in the
> >>> form:
> >>> //-------------
> >>> // Acttivity group description as described in OpenStep specification
> >>> //-------------
> >>
> >> Euch ... I hate that ... I like methods to be in alphabetical order
> >> within their categories to make them easy to find.
> >
> > Actually, in OpenStep specicication, methods are in alphabetical order
> > within activity group. If by "categories" you mean that groups, then
> > everything is ok.
>
> No, I mean 'categories' to be taken in the technical sense used in the
> Objective-C language.
I see.
> Purely from a legalistic point of view, it is probably better to lay
> the code
> out as differently from the OpenStep/MacOS-X layouts as reasonably
> possible
> in order to make it difficult for any claim of copyright infringement
> ... though
> personally I don't really think we have much reason to worry about that.
That's it.
> So ... while I have no intention of asking anyone to structure things
> the way
> I happen to like, I would not like to be told to structure them the way
> OpenStep/Apple
I just thought that some defined structure (any we agree on) of sources
fasten bug fixing and future enhancements of GNUstep.
> do, and I think that if a recommendation is made at all, it should be
> that we *don't* follow that style.
I other words, no style is a Good Style for GNUstep ;)
No problem, I'll stop my activity.
--
Serg Stoyan