s4-libcli: Remove obsolete support for file resolving.

[obnox/samba/samba-obnox.git] / README.Coding

diff --git a/README.Coding b/README.Coding
index b1ac2fe6666c48429e66c3dac74d45ae522c39e5..0bbba9fc45e5fd756ff2b77df54e86a0cebeb607 100644 (file)
--- a/README.Coding
+++ b/README.Coding
@@ -16,11 +16,16 @@ style should never outweigh coding itself and so the guidelines
 described here are hopefully easy enough to follow as they are very
 common and supported by tools and editors.
 
-The basic style, also mentioned in prog_guide4.txt, is the Linux kernel
+The basic style for C code, also mentioned in prog_guide4.txt, is the Linux kernel
 coding style (See Documentation/CodingStyle in the kernel source tree). This
 closely matches what most Samba developers use already anyways, with a few
 exceptions as mentioned below.
 
+The coding style for Python code is documented in PEP8,
+http://www.python.org/pep/pep8 (with spaces). 
+If you have ever worked on another free software Python project, you are
+probably already familiar with it.
+
 But to save you the trouble of reading the Linux kernel style guide, here
 are the highlights.
 
@@ -94,11 +99,12 @@ Comments
 --------
 
 Comments should always use the standard C syntax.  C++
-style comments are not currently allowed. The lines before
-a comment should be empty. If the comment directly belongs
-to the following code, there should be no empty line after
-the comment. In case the comment contains a summary of
-mutliple following code blogs.
+style comments are not currently allowed.
+
+The lines before a comment should be empty. If the comment directly
+belongs to the following code, there should be no empty line
+after the comment, except if the comment contains a summary
+of multiple following code blocks.
 
 This is good:
 
@@ -358,3 +364,27 @@ Bad Example:
        ret = some_function_my_name(get_some_name());
        ...
 
+Control-Flow changing macros
+----------------------------
+
+Macros like NT_STATUS_NOT_OK_RETURN that change control flow
+(return/goto/etc) from within the macro are considered bad, because
+they look like function calls that never change control flow. Please
+do not use them in new code.
+
+The only exception is the test code that depends repeated use of calls
+like CHECK_STATUS, CHECK_VAL and others.
+
+
+Function names in DEBUG statements
+----------------------------------
+
+Many DEBUG statements contain the name of the function they appear in. This is
+not a good idea, as this is prone to bitrot. Function names change, code
+moves, but the DEBUG statements are not adapted. Use %s and __func__ for this:
+
+Bad Example:
+       DEBUG(0, ("strstr_m: src malloc fail\n"));
+
+Good Example:
+       DEBUG(0, ("%s: src malloc fail\n", __func__));