Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110033 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 22293 invoked from network); 6 May 2020 09:18:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 6 May 2020 09:18:31 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA07F1804F3 for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 00:53:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-lj1-f181.google.com (mail-lj1-f181.google.com [209.85.208.181]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 6 May 2020 00:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f181.google.com with SMTP id h4so1277536ljg.12 for ; Wed, 06 May 2020 00:53:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FJuH6N0iM4UiQV/1vVy5UrpCsjiSys6S0BHbuXsoRvY=; b=hWzuH7/6NMuIkhSoz8Qg5G5pba5P502MDDy2d1shqLpEq585wM21TGDxHNJhI7qArJ /94eEhai9rkDuiDtzNSQExS0pT+jJDdGLL0T1/ytMzTB8OtWSg0VVpZuC3bi6USL1Bz2 3gimIsH9ztzbVnlAWy1RWC8SAeog4o3cpZi6gb1NEG6MxP5FC/KTYgi4zT3WIYDc/m0p hofalAff2sr5QCA+a+oF8rHTvOK0tuZ89rIHmEJ9lqYBorzPAAriaXhPlkKxC68hxXoQ Ilu05Y5kPpSeyYKr8UhYos1XyoaBStQCtocfcKq0a2d5npcigUFIW5Nnt4NA8q4+sIVJ PVSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FJuH6N0iM4UiQV/1vVy5UrpCsjiSys6S0BHbuXsoRvY=; b=nP8fWHHTryUV6mmhLZW8LmDazbFTWUbV3voNamGSr6avzkol3Il8Nog3fpXAUwiC7h neyl4eI76TkyIJVbzJlAUfLUPtCGq+6odP++ayzoHccOtLYV8tyl97OcoXEacCZ0dCJS Lp7NrWCsdTrHs6x5ARMg7OjR0cdTX4fW3Y0tt8yavmxKbN8RBFv1z+XWoXXQg16uFwdS YTLfyIAhvtKrpIU21cytNCbrN7X8Omwd78GXO9Ajq6Yg+rXGECIG8sZjqi9Nos98skwO M+CllwAQ95eDiQrN1gYaAr3epHhaekjiQYY9N2CMPrWSAsIHI06izWhtKVJ9N1QOleLu d9ww== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuactcHqJKi80E2cfcITk9o705aAPwMk6y0M1Bs6fBPXguaAUHuq lYpt91WGc/2Hro4QAdFzYO8FCdpIfoRQf7wLm7k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIbxLbwpfzQUeDv74bAchhWlOvBCNHPYoMbD0ECPfz7UhQtXYKWoYqEgTSEjjCfzF5znTQx/iM4iH+N4EiMcaA= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:85da:: with SMTP id h26mr4123831ljj.260.1588751616397; Wed, 06 May 2020 00:53:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 09:53:20 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Christoph M. Becker" Cc: PHP internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bb556d05a4f60f24" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Update coding standards wrt. C99? From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --000000000000bb556d05a4f60f24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:32 AM Christoph M. Becker wrote: > Hi all, > > since master requires (mostly) C99 compliant compilers anyway, I wonder > if we like to update our coding standards[1], to reflect: > > * that we require (mostly) C99 compliant compilers (instead of ANSI-C > compliant compilers) > > * that mixing of declarations and statements is fine > Sounds good. This restriction going away has been a great quality of life improvement when working on master. > * that C++ style comments are now allowed, or maybe that they are still > forbidden (in the latter case the stated reasons should be updated) > It seems like in practice the style is basically /* */ for most comments and // for TODO comments. Not sure how that came about :) No strong opinion on whether to keep it that way or not. We may also consider to drop the "Documentation and folding hooks"[2] > section; besides that it is already partially outdated (AIUI, > doc/genfuncsummary is superseeded by doc/docgen for a long time), I > don't think these folding markers encapsulating each individual function > are useful nowadays. > Yes, this section should be dropped. We should also drop all existing folding marks when someone has time to come up with the right regular expressions for that. They're a lot of noise, regularly broken and not actually needed by any decent tooling (including vim, no idea about emacs, but I would be very surprised if it did not support code structure based folding). Regards, Nikita --000000000000bb556d05a4f60f24--