Re: Octave coding conventions

[John W. Eaton]

On 1/13/20 11:02 AM, Rik wrote:
> How strictly do we want to enforce a line break after the return type in a
> function declaration?  We mostly do this, but not always.  For example, in
> Array.cc there is
>
> template <typename T>
> Array<T>
> Array<T>::permute (const Array<octave_idx_type>& perm_vec_arg, bool inv) const
>
> but also
>
> template <typename T>
> T * do_index (const T *src, T *dest, int lev) const
>
> And do we want to enforce this convention in .cc files only or also .h
> files?  For example, Array.h contains
>
> octave_idx_type numel (void) const { return len; }
>
> which is small and compact, but if enforcing the return type for a function
> would become
>
> octave_idx_type
> numel (void) const { return len; }
>
> There is no problem with declarations in a header file as that is a
> separate switch to throw in astyle.

The original reason for writing the return type on a separate line was 
so that the function name would begin in column 1.  Then you could 
easily grep for function declarations and definitions using an anchored 
pattern like ^FCN_NAME".  But that doesn't work well for C++ member 
functions or any function inside a namespace declaration if we are 
indenting all code inside a namespace.

Recently, I've been putting the declaration all on one line if possible 
or splitting after the return type if the return type is long.  I don't 
see that there is one rule that will fit all cases.  I just try to do 
what looks best and makes the most sense for each case.

jwe