[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #18733 [Metrics/CollecTor]: contributor's guide incl. coding guidelines for java projects
#18733: contributor's guide incl. coding guidelines for java projects
-------------------------------+--------------------------
Reporter: iwakeh | Owner: iwakeh
Type: task | Status: assigned
Priority: Medium | Milestone:
Component: Metrics/CollecTor | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: ctip | Actual Points:
Parent ID: #18730 | Points:
Reviewer: | Sponsor:
-------------------------------+--------------------------
Comment (by iwakeh):
Replying to [comment:5 karsten]:
> I think I agree with that ordering, but let me give an example and hear
from you whether that's what you had in mind:
>
> {{{
> class A {
> int a;
> int b;
> void m() {
> n();
> p();
> }
> void n() {
> o();
> }
> void o() {}
> void p() {}
> }
> }}}
>
> Your preference is to put `o()` above of `p()`, because `o()` is the
lower-level function that gets called in `n()`? Hmm, or would `p()` go
first, because it's a lower-level function called in `m()`?
>
That is a tricky question :-)
but the solution listed above looks ok.
Imagine, we're reading source code (on a remote server using) `less` or
similar:
When reading `m()` and then trying to find out what `n()` does, it'll be
good to have `o()` immediately below `n()`.
Whereas, when we want to find out what `p()` is about we scroll down and
read `p()`'s declaration.
Even if `p()` would use `o()`, too, that's ok, b/c we scrolled by `o()`'s
declaration already, or read it while finding out about `n()`.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/18733#comment:7>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs