Re: [ros-dev] Propose standards for the audit

[James Hawkins]

On 1/28/06, Steven Edwards <winehacker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>   Hello,
>  Ok here are some proposed ground rules for the audit. Mostly thanks to
>  Art and Alex. We are still open for debate on this
>  
...
>   1. A function is deemed to have been implemented in a
> non-clean manner if
>
>   - functions for which there is NO DOCUMENTATION 
I think this condition isn't always evidence of a non-clean
implementation of a function.  A developer might have written tests
for a function and not committed them back to ReactOS.  This could be
rewritten as:

"If a function has NO DOCUMENTATION and no test cases exist either in
ReactOS or elsewhere, then test cases must be submitted to ReactOS."

>    - functions with excessive gotos
>  
This case is similar to the documentation case in that it's not direct
evidence of a non-clean implementation.  I frequently use gotos for
releasing many resources in error cases as a way of factoring code.  A
better wording would be:

"Functions with excessive gotos should be marked for further inspection."

--
James Hawkins