Subject: Re: Source indentation style - take II
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Fri Feb 16 2001 - 13:32:55 CST
At 07:59 PM 2/16/01 +0100, Jesper Skov wrote:
>I've seen no comments on this posting (other than the width issue
>addressed, and I believe agreed to, by Bill and Martin).
Sorry. There's been a ton of traffic on this list recently, and it's very
difficult to stay on top of every issue. (Indeed, family members keep
reminding me that my attempts to try have only worsened the problem.)
>Does that mean people accept the style?
Not necessarily.
I agree that there's some jumbling to be fixed, but the prettified code
variants I've seen from you so far don't match any of the clean code in the
trees, either. I dislike the idea of tools reformatting good code, too.
There *was* a very consistent "house style" that Jeff, Eric, and I used when
originally writing the product. We've been working together on and off in
various combinations since the early 90s. Thus, when you're reading any
file touched only by the 3 of us, you have to key off some pretty subtle
stylistic cues to distinguish which lines got written by whom. (In fact,
most changes to Eric's files look like he wrote them, etc.)
If you really want to auto-prettify ugly portions of the code, my suggestion
would be to pick a cleanly-written existing file to use as a model. The
proof would be that your tools do NOT wind up modifying that model in any
substantial way. Your best bet here would be to:
- select one of Jeff's files from deep in the piece table and
- confirm via cvsblame that it hasn't been munged by too many other folks.
Jeff was the fussiest of us all about clean-looking macros, so that'd be a
really good test.
Paul
motto -- reformatting someone else's code is a great way to piss them off
motto #2 -- and sometimes that's appropriate ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Feb 16 2001 - 18:16:23 CST