Re: NSBrowser cleanup

[Serg Stoyan]

Hello Richard,

> On 30 Jun 2004, at 21:23, Serg Stoyan wrote:
> 
> > Hello Richard,
> >
> >> On 30 Jun 2004, at 18:22, Serg Stoyan wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've done some formatting inside NSBrowser.m also. The basic
> >>> principles of this formatting are:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Methods are placed in order specified in OpenStep specification.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Methods are grouped by activity prepending with comments in the
> >>> form:
> >>> //-------------
> >>> // Acttivity group description as described in OpenStep specification
> >>> //-------------
> >>
> >> Euch ... I hate that ... I like methods to be in alphabetical order
> >> within their categories to make them easy to find.
> >
> > Actually, in OpenStep specicication, methods are in alphabetical order
> > within activity group. If by "categories" you mean that groups, then
> > everything is ok.
> 
> No, I mean 'categories' to be taken in the technical sense used in the
> Objective-C language.

I see.

> Purely from a legalistic point of view, it is probably better to lay 
> the code
> out as differently from the OpenStep/MacOS-X layouts as reasonably 
> possible
> in order to make it difficult for any claim of copyright infringement 
> ... though
> personally I don't really think we have much reason to worry about that.

That's it. 

> So ... while I have no intention of asking anyone to structure things 
> the way
> I happen to like, I would not like to be told to structure them the way 
> OpenStep/Apple

I just thought that some defined structure (any we agree on) of sources
fasten bug fixing and future enhancements of GNUstep.

> do, and I think that if a recommendation is made at all, it should be 
> that we *don't* follow that style.

I other words, no style is a Good Style for GNUstep ;) 
No problem, I'll stop my activity.

-- 
Serg Stoyan