On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:31:19PM +0000, Robert Hogan wrote:
>
> Mentioned this on irc the other night and took the attached approach.
>
> If you are happy with the general outline, I can prepare a proper
> patch adding stuff to the docs etc and with proper comments.
Looks good.
> There are probably a couple
> of house-style solecisms in there too, so please let me know.
Okay! (Ordinarily, I'd just clean this kind of stuff up myself, but
you asked.) First off, here's some stuff you might not know about our
house style:
- we have a whitespace checking script that you can invoke
with "make check-spaces"
- we try to make everything build warning-free on GCC. If you're
using a Unix-like platform, run configure with
--enable-gcc-warnings in order to keep your source squeaky-clean.
The only actual error I found in the code was that you declared a
no-arguments function as "int fn();" rather than "int fn(void)". This
is fine in C++ or Java, but in standard C, it can be confused for an
old (pre-ANSI) style declaration where instead of saying "this
function takes no arguments" you're saying "this function might or
might take arguments; I'm not telling."
Again, this looks like a good and useful feature. Would you like me
to tidy up the patch and check it in, or would you like to do it
yourself?
yrs,
--
Nick Mathewson
Attachment:
pgpzhuYycpwUX.pgp
Description: PGP signature