AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20081110111518.1ccbfa54@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:exch1.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<amit.bothra@onstor.com>,<dl-software@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@exch1.onstor.net/INBOX	0	2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB5175D402751@exch1.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:16:47 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: Amit Bothra <amit.bothra@onstor.com>
Cc: dl-Software <dl-software@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: coding style updates
Message-ID: <20081110111647.7c9ff501@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB5175D402751@exch1.onstor.net>
References: <2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB5175C0F5874@exch1.onstor.net>
	<2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB5175D402751@exch1.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

So you're saying even the FP code doesn't follow a clear standard?
"Studly caps" is a sickness that needs to be stamped out.  Besides, the
"no caps" rule is practically the only rule in the coding standard that
_isn't_ wrong.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:11:47 -0800 Amit Bothra <amit.bothra@onstor.com>
wrote:

> Hi Max,
> 
> Almost 80-90% of FP code has capitalized identifiers. I am not sure
> if it's a great idea to enforce the "no caps" rule now. Both
> underscores and caps provide the same readability.
> 
> Thanks,
> Amit
> 
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________
> From: Maxim Kozlovsky
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:24 PM
> To: dl-Software
> Subject: coding style updates
> 
> Hello,
> 
> There are several updates to the coding style at
> http://wiki.onstor.net/wiki/ONStor_Coding_Style_Guide
> 
> 1)      The coding style did not specify the capitalization of
> identifiers previously. It does now - no caps in variable, function
> and type names, use underscores to separate the words. 2)      The
> extra indent for the case statement is not required any more. The
> rule was contradicting more than half of existing code and does not
> add readability. 3)      The unnecessary curly braces in the case
> statement are not required anymore. The rule was contradicting more
> than half of existing code and does not add readability or
> reliability 4)      The rule #22 should have said "one parameter per
> line" to follow the majority of the code.
> 
> Max
> 
