Re: [1/3] d3dx9: Partial implementation of D3DXAssembleShader function. [try 3]

[Stefan Dösinger]

Am 08.02.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Matteo Bruni:
> Other than the things Henri last mentioned, there are some more small
> changes (make some struct const/static, whitespace fixes, remove some
> useless cruft, ...) particularly in patches 2 and 3.
> <0001-d3dx9-Partial-implementation-of-D3DXAssembleShader-fun.txt>
> Henri is on holidays this week(I think), here are 3 things I noticed:
> +    static const struct wpp_callbacks wpp_callbacks = {
> +        wpp_lookup_mem,
> +        wpp_open_mem,
> The placement of the { is not consistent with the rest of the patch
> (and the entire patch 1 is inconsistent with patch 2 and 3). It seems to me the predominant style in d3dx9 is the one used by patch 1, although there are some inconsistencies.
> +void wpp_write_message(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> +{
> Unless I am missing some wpp magic here you can make this function(and others) static as well.
> + * Copyright 2009 Matteo Bruni
> Maybe make this 2009-2010?

[1/3] d3dx9: Partial implementation of D3DXAssembleShader function. [try 3]

[Matteo Bruni]

2010/2/8 Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger(a)gmx.at>:
> Am 08.02.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Matteo Bruni:
> > Other than the things Henri last mentioned, there are some more small
> > changes (make some struct const/static, whitespace fixes, remove some
> > useless cruft, ...) particularly in patches 2 and 3.
> > <0001-d3dx9-Partial-implementation-of-D3DXAssembleShader-fun.txt>
> > Henri is on holidays this week(I think), here are 3 things I noticed:
> > +    static const struct wpp_callbacks wpp_callbacks = {
> > +        wpp_lookup_mem,
> > +        wpp_open_mem,
> > The placement of the { is not consistent with the rest of the patch
> > (and the entire patch 1 is inconsistent with patch 2 and 3). It seems to me the predominant style in d3dx9 is the one used by patch 1, although there are some inconsistencies.

In this case the '{' should go on its own line, sure. In general in
shader.c I tried to keep the style already used there, while in the
shader assembler files the style is different (although it should be
consistent on itself).
Let me know if you believe I should use everywhere the style used in shader.c.
> > +void wpp_write_message(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> > +{
> > Unless I am missing some wpp magic here you can make this function(and others) static as well.

Er, yes, some other statics missing...
> > + * Copyright 2009 Matteo Bruni
> > Maybe make this 2009-2010?

Well, in 2010 I've only done little changes. The real development on
this was in 2009. What's the policy in these cases? I believe I can
put the 2010 safely.

[1/3] d3dx9: Partial implementation of D3DXAssembleShader function. [try 3]

[Stefan Dösinger]

Am 08.02.2010 um 21:51 schrieb Matteo Bruni:
> In this case the '{' should go on its own line, sure. In general in
> shader.c I tried to keep the style already used there, while in the
> shader assembler files the style is different (although it should be
> consistent on itself).
> Let me know if you believe I should use everywhere the style used in shader.c.
> I personally don't have a strong opinion on this. It's certainly preferable to use the same style as in shader.c everywhere, but for me this is not a commit-stopper. Henri is usually pretty uptight about style in wined3d(at least in the parts he has reformatted in the past), but I think if he had objections he'd have voiced them by now.

I'd recommend to talk to the other d3dx9 developers about those issues, and whether you want to set any styles for the library as a whole.
> > > + * Copyright 2009 Matteo Bruni
> > > Maybe make this 2009-2010?
>
> Well, in 2010 I've only done little changes. The real development on
> this was in 2009. What's the policy in these cases? I believe I can
> put the 2010 safely.
> I have seen people adjust the years for simple fixes, although I don't know if there is a formal policy. Since your patches are going in now I guess anything from "2009", "2009, 2010" to "2010" is warranted.

Since most countries don't require a copyright notice any longer(although still recommend it) I guess there is no real legal significance to the year. In most places copyright expiration doesn't depend on the publication date but on the year of the death of the last surviving creator.

IANAL, somebody who knows this better please correct me.