Re: a few coding standards

Hi Philip, I'm new, so this has probably been discussed a million times. Do we have to leave all the crap at the bottom of every file? How many people use vim? Is there a better way to do it? A pretty rough estimate, but I'd say those comments account for atleast 1/3rd of the size of the xml sources? "Philip Olson" <philip@cornado.com> wrote in message news:Pine.BSF.4.10.10407271329320.48202-100000@merlin.pegasi.net... > Hello all! > > Just want to confirm that the following are true as I don't > believe these have been made official [yet]: > > a) No ending period in the reftitle > b) No ending period in the see also > c) Only part of docs wider than 78 characters is > methodsynopsis > d) New examples use ' not " wherever possible (this is > old since PEAR coding standards describe it but few > do it, not sure why) > e) All new (and eventually old) docs will use the new > upcoming 'refsect style' > > Regarding (a), it's a little strange when a reftitle has > multiple sentences, or commas, as it means only partial > punctuation is used when we leave off the ending period. > Should we live with that? Most are not this way so it > should be fine. Also, many times these titles aren't > even complete sentences. > > With (b) it would be nice if we didn't manually type in > commas either but it seems we abandoned that idea. Goba? > Adding them feels a little dirty but also simple and > doable. > > As far as (e) goes I'll write a separate email regarding > a CHANGELOG refsect1 proposal (this has been discussed > many times!) but other than that what do you guys think? > > Regards, > Philip