diff options
author | Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> | 2005-06-03 14:51:57 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> | 2005-06-03 14:51:57 +0000 |
commit | 36beed9bf1b3ddef42e0fb1a46035ed4a6afa4f7 (patch) | |
tree | 0521492031275c76e49feb05067a4c199bfc6098 /CODING_STYLE | |
parent | f87fd91bcf06a1e7a9332005b5d88d6b55c82548 (diff) |
Add CODING_STYLE document to standardize on some style issues.
Standardize brace handling around all else clauses according to new CODING_STYLE guidelines.
Diffstat (limited to 'CODING_STYLE')
-rw-r--r-- | CODING_STYLE | 211 |
1 files changed, 211 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/CODING_STYLE b/CODING_STYLE new file mode 100644 index 00000000..c2c6d4a5 --- /dev/null +++ b/CODING_STYLE @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@ +Cairo coding style. + +This document is intended to be a short description of the preferred +coding style for the cairo source code. Good style requires good +taste, which means this can't all be reduced to automated rules, and +there are exceptions. + +We want the code to be easy to understand and maintain, and consistent +style plays an important part in that, even if some of the specific +details seem trivial. If nothing else, this document gives a place to +put consistent answers for issues that would otherwise be arbitrary. + +Most of the guidelines here are demonstrated by examples, (which means +this document is quicker to read than it might appear given its +length). Most of the examples are positive examples that you should +imitate. The few negative examples are clearly marked with a comment +of /* Yuck! */. Please don't submit code to cairo that looks like any +of these. + +Indentation +----------- +Each new level is indented 4 more spaces than the previous level: + + if (condition) + do_something (); + +Spaces or tabs (or a combination) can be used in indentation, but tabs +must always be interpreted as 8 spaces. Code using single tabs for all +indentation (expecting people to interpret tabs as 4 spaces) will not +be accepted in cairo. + +The rationale here is that tabs are used in the code for lining things +up other than indentation, (see the Whitespace section below), and +changing the interpretation of tab from 8 characters will break this. + +Braces +------ +Most of the code in cairo uses bracing in the style of K&R: + + if (condition) { + do_this (); + do_that (); + } else { + do_the_other (); + } + +but some of the code uses an alternate style: + + if (condition) + { + do_this (); + do_that (); + } + else + { + do_the_other (); + } + +and that seems just fine. We won't lay down any strict rule on this +point, (though there should be some local). If you came here hoping to +find some guidance, then use the first form above. + +If all of the substatements of an if statement are single statements, +the optional braces should not usually appear: + + if (condition) + do_this (); + else + do_that (); + +But the braces are mandatory when mixing single statement and compund +statements in the various clauses. For example, do not do this: + + if (condition) { + do_this (); + do_that (); + } else /* Yuck! */ + do_the_other (); + +And of course, there are exceptions for when the code just looks +better with the braces: + + if (condition) { + /* Note that we have to be careful here. */ + do_something_dangerous (with_care); + } + + if (condition && + other_condition && + yet_another) + { + do_something (); + } + +And note that this last example also shows a situtation in which the +opening brace really needs to be on its own line. The following looks awful: + + if (condition && + other_condition && + yet_another) { /* Yuck! */ + do_something (); + } + +As we said above, legible code that is easy to understand and maintain +is the goal, not adherence to strict rules. + +Whitespace +---------- +Separate logically distinct chunks with a single newline. This +obviously applies between functions, but also applies within a +function or block and can even be used to good effect within a +structure definition: + + struct _cairo_gstate { + cairo_operator_t operator; + + double tolerance; + + /* stroke style */ + double line_width; + cairo_line_cap_t line_cap; + cairo_line_join_t line_join; + double miter_limit; + + cairo_fill_rule_t fill_rule; + + double *dash; + int num_dashes; + double dash_offset; + + ... + } + +Use a single space before a left parenthesis, except where the +standard will not allow it, (eg. when defining a parameterized macro). + +Don't eliminate whitespace just because things would still fit on one +line. This breaks the expected visual structure of the code making it +much harder to read and understand: + + if (condition) foo (); else bar (); /* Yuck! */ + +As a special case of the bracing and whitespace guidelines, function +definitions should always take the following form: + + void + my_function (argument) + { + do_my_things (); + } + +And function prototypes should similarly have the return type (and +associated specifiers and qualifiers) on a line above the function, so +that the function name is flush left. + +Break up long line (> ~80 characters) and use whitespace to align +things nicely. For example the arguments in a long list to a function call should all be aligned with each other: + + align_function_arguments (argument_the_first, + argument_the_second, + argument_the_third); + +And as a special rule, in a function prototype, (as well as in the +definition), whitespace should be inserted between the parameter types +and names so that the names are aligned: + + void + align_parameter_names_in_prototypes (const char *char_star_arg, + int int_arg, + double *double_star_arg, + double duble_arg); + +Note that parameters with a * prefix are aligned one character to the +left so that the actual names are aligned. + +Managing nested blocks +---------------------- +Long blocks that are deeply nested make the code very hard to +read. Fortunately such blocks often indicate logically distinct chunks +of functionality that are begging to be split into their own +functions. Please listen to the blocks when they beg. + +In other cases, gratuitous nesting comes about because the primary +functionality gets buried in a nested block rather than living at the +primary level where it belongs. Consider the following: + + foo = malloc (sizeof (foo_t)); + if (foo) { /* Yuck! */ + ... + /* lots of code to initialize foo */ + ... + return SUCCESS; + } + return FAILURE; + +This kind of gratuitous nesting can be avoided by following a pattern +of handling exceptional cases early and returning: + + foo = malloc (sizeof (foo_t)); + if (foo == NULL) + return FAILURE; + + ... + /* lots of code to initialize foo */ + ... + return SUCCESS; + +The return statement is often the best thing to use in a pattern like +this. If it's not available due to additional nesting above which +require some cleanup after the current block, then consider splitting +the current block into a new function before using goto. |