Re: [PEPr][TEST] Proposal for XML::XML_Annotea
| From: | Stefan Neufeind | Date: | Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:28:22 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [PEPr][TEST] Proposal for XML::XML_Annotea | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-23988@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 30 Nov 2003 at 14:27, Tobias Schlitt wrote:
> <zitiere wer="Martin Jansen">
> > Please don't use TRUE and FALSE, but true/false in your code. And
> > method definitions should be
>
> > function XML_Annotea_Client($server, $options = array())
> > {
> > ...
> > }
>
> > instead of
> >
> > function XML_Annotea_Client($server, $options = array()) {
> > ...
> > }
>
> Hi Martin!
>
> I wondered about the bracket conventions in cs.
>
> <snip>
> Function declarations follow the "one true brace" convention:
> <?php
> function fooFunction($arg1, $arg2 = '')
> {
> if (condition) {
> statement;
> }
> return $val;
> }
> ?>
> </snip>
>
> Why are brackets handled different for methods and
> controllstructures, while both things are for structuring code in
> blocks?
Toby, seems like you're again willing to change the world :-)) But
I've thought about this myself. My personal oppinion is that I like
for(...)
{
...
}
better than the solution in the CS-guides because than you have both
brackets below each other. The same is currently used for functions.
But believe me - this could lead to another big discussion now that
you've started the thread. Is it worth it? Or should we for the time
being just stick to the CS and talk about it later? Although I agree
with you that it could be more "consequent".
Regards,
Stefan