Re: coding style guidelines? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: coding style guidelines?
Date
Msg-id 200011170206.VAA11826@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: coding style guidelines?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> writes:
> > Is there any guidelines on the formatting of the C code in
> > PG?  As I was working on guc-file.l yesterday, I noticed
> > some things with LONG lines (I broke some of them up).
> > I was wondering if there were formal standards? 
> 
> Brace layout, comment layout and indentation are all brought into line
> by pg_indent, which Bruce runs at least once per release cycle.
> However, I don't think pg_indent will consider breaking non-comment lines
> into multiple lines, so it's up to the code author to be reasonable in
> that area.

It does wrap >80 lines.

> 
> My own practice is to try to make the code look nice in an 80-column
> window.
> 
> BTW, if you are writing a comment that you don't want to have
> reformatted by pg_indent's rather braindead reformatter, protect it
> with some dashes:
> 
>     /*----------
>      * This text will not get reformatted.
>      *----------
>      */
> 
> 
> > Also, do we care about extraneous #include's? 
> 
> Not very much.  You have to be particularly cautious about removing
> system-header #includes, since what looks redundant on your platform
> may not be redundant for other platforms.  I think Bruce has a tool
> to look for unnecessary includes of our own header files, but it
> doesn't risk trying to remove system headers.

Yes, it does not touch system includes.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marko Kreen
Date:
Subject: Re: [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [rfc] new CREATE FUNCTION (and more)