[LAU] Ardour: exporting woes

[Filipe Coelho]

On 31.03.2016 09:27, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I believe the function of the code as committed is unchanged, but its 
> less than readable, and it would have to be verified by cntx, a 
> checking utility I wrote 25 or so years ago just to verify that 
> []{}()""'' etc stuff was in fact matched. I also suspect that if the 
> compiler is working well, it would generate identical machine code 
> from that hard to read 2nd example. Which leaves the question: Why 
> force a hard to read, hard to check for errors etc format on the code 
> submitters? It contributes to hard to find & fix bugs. And for the 
> savvy coders, one of which already piped up about the brace locations, 
> it may make them reticent to submit what is a perfectly good patch. 
> I'd think discourageing potential submitters is pretty close to the 
> last thing you would want to do. 

This is what uncrustify was supposed to solve.

By applying uncrustify on the original jack1 code plus the code with 
Fons' patch (and then generating a diff),
we would, in theory, get rid of all the whitespace and style changes..

Either the uncrustify config is not 100% correct, or uncrustify itself 
has issues.


In my opinion we should get back to the original jack1 code before 
uncrustify messed up things.
And then try to generate a clean patch. I'm willing to do the clean 
patch if Paul reverts uncrustify changes.
@Paul: is that ok?