Several patches for D3DX

[Luis Busquets]

Is there still any problem with each of the attached patches or are they 
going to be committed?

[James Hawkins]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Luis Busquets
 wrote:
> Is there still any problem with each of the attached patches or are they
> going to be committed?

+WINAPI DWORD D3DXGetShaderVersion(CONST DWORD *pFunction)
+{
+    DWORD ver;
+    if (!pFunction)
+     {
+      return 0;
+      }
+    /* The first DWORD of the stream is the version Token */
+   ver=*pFunction;
+   return ver;
+}

I can't attest to any of the rest, but the style in this function is
horrendous.  Your spacing is all over the place.  Also, correctness of
this function aside, the function can be written so much simpler as:

WINAPI DWORD D3DXGetShaderVersion(CONST DWORD *pFunction)
{
    return (pFunction) ? *pFunction : 0;
}

[Luis Busquets]

Thanks for your sincere response. I am aware that there are diverse 
styles of writing the functions and all can be criticised: some for its 
complexity, others for its unreadability, others for its length... 
Anyway at this point in time , what I see as evident is that the three 
implementations that I have submitted comply with their attached tests 
and I have tried to include all the modifications proposed. Although in 
my opinion the best would be to commit these patches and, if needed, 
increase the beautiness of the code in particular direction later, for 
me it is evident that it is not hard to implement these three functions 
in one way or another.

Therefore, in the case that the implementations submitted are not liked, 
please, I ask a more experienced programmer to submit his/her 
implementations and commit them to the tree for these really trivial 
functions (D3DXGetShaderVersion, D3DXGetShaderSize, D3DXGetFVFVertexSize).

James Hawkins escribió:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Luis Busquets
>  wrote:
> > Is there still any problem with each of the attached patches or are they
> > going to be committed?
>
> +WINAPI DWORD D3DXGetShaderVersion(CONST DWORD *pFunction)
> +{
> - DWORD ver;
> - if (!pFunction)
> -
> {
> -
>  return 0;
> -
>  }
> - /* The first DWORD of the stream is the version Token */
> - ver=*pFunction;
> - return ver;
>
> +}
>
> I can't attest to any of the rest, but the style in this function is
> horrendous.  Your spacing is all over the place.  Also, correctness of
> this function aside, the function can be written so much simpler as:
>
> WINAPI DWORD D3DXGetShaderVersion(CONST DWORD *pFunction)
> {
>     return (pFunction) ? *pFunction : 0;
> }

[James Hawkins]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Luis Busquets
 wrote:
> Thanks for your sincere response. I am aware that there are diverse styles
> of writing the functions and all can be criticised: some for its complexity,
> others for its unreadability, others for its length... Anyway at this point
> in time , what I see as evident is that the three implementations that I
> have submitted comply with their attached tests and I have tried to include
> all the modifications proposed. Although in my opinion the best would be to
> commit these patches and, if needed, increase the beautiness of the code in
> particular direction later, for me it is evident that it is not hard to
> implement these three functions in one way or another.
>
> Therefore, in the case that the implementations submitted are not liked,
> please, I ask a more experienced programmer to submit his/her
> implementations and commit them to the tree for these really trivial
> functions (D3DXGetShaderVersion, D3DXGetShaderSize, D3DXGetFVFVertexSize).

That's definitely not going to happen.  Style consistency is of utmost
importance when submitting patches.  Very rarely does Julliard accept
a style "beautification" patch.  It has to be right the first time
it's committed.  Also, we're all busy working on whatever we're
working on, so you either fix them up and resend, or they're going to
bit-rot.  P.S. please bottom-post in this mailing list.