On Aug 18, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Paul Stadig wrote: > It may help *you* grasp the meaning more quickly, but the opposite may be > true for others. But I guess automatic formatting would totally destroy the > ability to talk about line 16 of a particular file. > This is a nifty point and idea.
I think I'd enjoy living in such a world, as it would probably support a more harmonious existence amongst coders, somewhat in the same vein as the good that comes out of racial-tolerance. Your code may look different than mine, but it's still cool because they both compile just the same. ;-) In such a world it may be better than to speak of expression numbers instead of line numbers, but alas, that would require quite a departure from the world of editors that we live in today. - Greg > I've rarely found these coding style discussions to be productive, and have > wondered why source control systems don't just store code in a whitespace > normalized format and automatically format the code to your own taste when > you check it out, because, let's face it, formatting is semantically > irrelevant. It may help *you* grasp the meaning more quickly, but the > opposite may be true for others. But I guess automatic formatting would > totally destroy the ability to talk about line 16 of a particular file. > > Then I move on to thinking it best for a language designer to just legislate > fomatting and make it a compiler error, but that would probably generate more > discussion than otherwise, so I've just written the whole thing off as a > lose-lose situation. But maybe I'm just getting cumudgenly in my old age. > > I do however firmly believe that each language has a worldview and a culture > that coaleces around it, and one is better off either adopting it whole hog, > or finding another language that matches better with one's own worldview. > Something akin to what Brenton said about choosing a language because it > mirrors your thinking, not because of readability concerns. It is a disaster > to try to force the idioms of one language to be true in another. > Paul > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
