reindent:
@# requires either vim 7.4, or github.com/vim-erlang/vim-erlang-runtime
@# this should indent the same as emacs erlang major mode or it's a bug
@# add -c ':set runtimepath^=~/v/.vim/bundle/vim-erlang-runtime/' if
less
vim -E -N --noplugin -u /dev/null -c ':filetype plugin indent on' \
-c ':args src/*.?rl' \
-c 'argdo silent execute "normal gg=G"' \
-c 'update' -c q
muahahahaha "there is still good in you"
allegedly the same as emacs, but I don’t dare try.
A+
Dave
“Join the dark side, together we will rule the galaxy as one."
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com>
Reply: dev@couchdb.apache.org <dev@couchdb.apache.org>>
Date: 11. Oktober 2014 at 21:37:46
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org <dev@couchdb.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Erlang whitespace standards (was: [POLL])
> Fauxton team just announces their JavaScript style guide:
> https://github.com/apache/couchdb-fauxton/pull/91
> I think we should push Erlang one forward too!
>
> Joan, would you like to continue your great work on it?
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> > A good next step would be for someone to move the pertinent info out
> > of this thread and onto the Confluence wiki.
> >
> > One thing we could do is work this guide/standards into our code/PR
> > review procedure. i.e. We make it legit, nay expected, that people
> > assess patches according to the standards, in addition to the normal
> > review process.
> >
> > On 4 April 2014 23:08, Paul Davis wrote:
> >> I definitely agree we should re-format the whole code base any time
> >> soon. Though at some point it'd be a good idea. Hopefully we can find
> >> a lull after the two big forks are merged where we can just have a
> >> commit on each Erlang repo to do the deed while there's no large
> >> outstanding work that'd be super difficult to merge.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Robert Samuel Newson wrote:
> >>> I appreciate firming up a consensus on indentation styles but I want to
> >>> be clearly
> -1 on a codebase-wide reformatting for the foreseeable future. Beyond the
> merges, we
> have active branches for older releases, the more reformatting we do, the
> harder back-
> and forward-porting becomes. I like the idea of being more consistent for
> future work
> and, where code is particularly crufty, refactoring before making a change.
> The "worst"
> formatted code in couchdb is generally the oldest, and much of that needs a
> refactor/rewrite
> as we get to it.
> >>>
> >>> B.
> >>>
> >>> On 4 Apr 2014, at 14:07, Alexander Shorin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Joan and all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I just faced another indention case which left out of scope of the vote:
> >>>> https://gist.github.com/kxepal/2c09fb5348ead90bea04
> >>>>
> >>>> Personally, I'm for 1) variant there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Another interesting case is anonymous function:
> >>>> https://gist.github.com/kxepal/c5480209af9e93a14155
> >>>>
> >>>> I prefer 3) one.
> >>>>
> >>>> What would be your recommendations there about?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Joan Touzet wrote:
> >>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Time to summarize the results. You can view the results at
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1b7KcQGgNbSCZVRwLjrUl5Z6C2TBx8X1btlU5fwrNHpg/viewanalytics
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> but I've included them in this email for ease of review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm going to break this up into sections and make some PROPOSALs. I'd
> >>>>> like to get general consensus on this vs. a "lazy" approach. I don't
> >>>>> see this as something where need a unanimous vote but I'd like to get us
> >>>>> all agree on something we can live with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As for getting this into the code base - let's not endanger the big
> >>>>> merges, but once we have finished them, we should move to these
> >>>>> standards piecemeal as we rework each file, as Noah and Jan suggest,
> >>>>> unless someone wants to do the busy work and re-indent everything.
> >>>>> Hopefully, even with the wait for the merges, this means the standard
> >>>>> can be "live" before the end of 2014 ;)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't cover all topics in here - please feel free to follow the post's
> >>>>> format and add additional proposals in follow-ups.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Finally, if I say something you disagree with or if I have
> >>>>> misinterpreted
> >>>>> your response, speak up - it was not intentional!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Joan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TERMINOLOGY USED:
> >>>>> * "X space indent" means X spaces from the LEFT MARGIN.
> >>>>> It is the ABSOLUTE number of columns of whitespace on a line.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * "Y space standard" means indentations should be multiples
> >>>>> of Y spaces.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * "Z level indent" means Z*Y=X absolute spaces for the indent.
> >>>>> For a 4-space standard, a 2 level indent would mean an 8 space
> >>>>> indent.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> STANDARD: Agree on a 4-space standard for horiz. indentation. Most of
> >>>>> the respondents seem to be comfortable with this, likely due to the
> >>>>> prevalence of the Python / Ruby / JS 4-space standard.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PROPOSAL: "Indent your code blocks with 4 spaces. Never use tabs or a
> >>>>> mix of tabs and spaces. When additional indentation levels are needed,
> >>>>> always increment by a multiple of 4 spaces."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This sets us up to be able to have the same spacing standard across JS,
> >>>>> C and other languages we may someday ship.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LINE LENGTH: 11 votes for 80, 6 votes for 132, 1 for 76.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PROPOSAL: "Maximum line length is 80 characters, with a preference for
> >>>>> 76 characters or less. Exception: URLs in comments"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CASE STATEMENT INDENTATION: 16 in favour of this format, 3 opposed:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> get_ini_files(Default) ->
> >>>>> case init:get_argument(couch_ini) of
> >>>>> error ->
> >>>>> Default;
> >>>>> {ok, [[]]} ->
> >>>>> Default;
> >>>>> {ok, [Values]} ->
> >>>>> Values
> >>>>> end.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This format matches Erlang documentation and is fairly canonical.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PROPOSAL: "Indent case pattern clauses 1 level, and each case pattern
> >>>>> body 2 levels from the initial case statement."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CASE STATEMENT ONE-LINERS: 11 in favour, 8 opposed:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> case {Name, Pass} of
> >>>>> {"Jan Lehnardt", "apple"} -> ok;
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only write-in for this suggested that one-liners needed to fit on a
> >>>>> single line "without looking terrible."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PROPOSAL: "Generally, case pattern bodies should always start on a new
> >>>>> line from their corresponding case pattern clause. However, you can put
> >>>>> the clause and body on the same line if the entire statement fits on one
> >>>>> line."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a tough one because it directly contradicts the previous
> >>>>> proposal. If people feel strongly I am OK to be more strict and remove
> >>>>> "Generally, " and the second sentence from this proposal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LONG FUNCTION CLAUSE:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 7 for paren aligned
> >>>>> 4 for 2-space indented
> >>>>> 5 for 8-space indented
> >>>>> 1 for "2 space, but no arguments on the initial line, with
> >>>>> the closing } on its own line"
> >>>>> 1 for "4-space indented"
> >>>>> 1 for "one tab"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As a reminder, here is the code, paren aligned:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> possibly_embed_doc(#collector{db_name=DbName, query_args=Args),
> >>>>> #view_row{key=_Key, id=_Id, value=Value, doc=_Doc}=Row) ->
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And 8-space aligned:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> possibly_embed_doc(
> >>>>> #collector{db_name=DbName, query_args=Args),
> >>>>> #view_row{key=_Key, id=_Id, value=Value, doc=_Doc}=Row) ->
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ideology here and on the list is split roughly into 2 camps:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Z-level indent of a multiple of 4 spaces. As the body of the
> >>>>> function will start at 4 spaces, I am going to recommend
> >>>>> against 1-level and say a 2-level (8 space) indent is the
> >>>>> option here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> * Emacs/paren indentation mode. I believe the big arguments for
> >>>>> this mode is "it's what my editor does" and "it's common in
> >>>>> strongly typed languages." If you feel differently, please
> >>>>> speak up. On the other side, Paul feels strongly about not
> >>>>> adopting this model; Wendall supports it and Bob N. says he
> >>>>> can 'retrain himself' to use it. Notice also that, in this
> >>>>> example, the second line ends on col. 78. Even if the -> was
> >>>>> wrapped to the next line, the line still ends on col. 75.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tough call here. Based on similarity with other popular languages of our
> >>>>> day I'm going to initially propose the first option and let anyone who
> >>>>> strongly opposes speak up now. There was no strong statement
> >>>>> about whether the ) or -> should be on its own line, so I'll leave
> >>>>> that part of the proposal vague for now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PROPOSAL: "Function definitions should align wrapped elements using a
> >>>>> 2-level hanging indent. There should be no arguments on the first line.
> >>>>> The closing parenthesis or arrow may be placed on its own line if
> >>>>> desired, but if so, it should be indented the same number of spaces as
> >>>>> the function definition itself." **but see below**
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LONG FUNCTION CALL:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 7 for paren-aligned
> >>>>> 7 for 4-space indent
> >>>>> 3 for 8-space indent
> >>>>> 1 for "rework the code, or 4-space indent"
> >>>>> 1 for "2 space, but no arguments on the initial line, with
> >>>>> the closing } on its own line"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As a reminder, here is the code, paren-aligned:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [_A, _B, _Cs] = re:split(?b2l(AuthSession), ":",
> >>>>> [{return, list}, {parts, 3}]),
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And 8-space aligned:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [_A, _B, _Cs] = re:split(?b2l(AuthSession), ":",
> >>>>> [{return, list}, {parts, 3}]),
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The more I looked at this topic, the more it looked like the last one,
> >>>>> but even more space constrained because of the existing indent of the
> >>>>> call itself. As such I'm going to roll it into the previous proposal:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> REVISED PROPOSAL: "Function definitions *and calls* should align wrapped
> >>>>> elements using a 2-level hanging indent. There should be no arguments on
> >>>>> the first line. The closing parenthesis or arrow may be placed on its
> >>>>> own line if desired, but if so, it should be indented the same number of
> >>>>> spaces as the function definition or call itself."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That means these would be acceptable:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [_A, _B, _Cs] = re:split(?b2l(AuthSession), ":",
> >>>>> [{return, list}, {parts, 3}]),
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [_A, _B, _Cs] = re:split(?b2l(AuthSession), ":",
> >>>>> [{return, list}, {parts, 3}]
> >>>>> ),
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LONG LIST WRAPPING:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4 for 8-space indent
> >>>>> 3 for "aligned with nested structure in previous line"
> >>>>> 5 for "single character indent"
> >>>>> 9 for "indented to match correct nesting block"
> >>>>> 3 for "4-space indent"
> >>>>> 1 for "2 with indented case"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reminder: You could vote for multiple options for this question.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is the code block formatted with single-character indent:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> case lists:member(revs, Options) of
> >>>>> false ->
> >>>>> [];
> >>>>> true ->
> >>>>> [{<<"revisions">>, {[{<<"start">>, Start},
> >>>>> {<<"ids">>, [revid_to_str(R) ||R ,_ RevIds]}]}}]
> >>>>> end.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And indented to match correct nesting block:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> case lists:member(revs, Options) of
> >>>>> false ->
> >>>>> [];
> >>>>> true ->
> >>>>> [
> >>>>> {<<"revisions">>,
> >>>>> {[{<<"start">>, Start},
> >>>>> {<<"ids">>, [revid_to_str(R) ||R ,_ RevIds]}
> >>>>> ]}
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> ]
> >>>>> end.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This was intended to be a question to which there really was no good
> >>>>> answer. ;) As expected, results are across the board, except for
> >>>>> "indented to match correct nesting block," which appears to be popular
> >>>>> because it was probably the only layout one could glance at and have a
> >>>>> hope of understanding.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't think there is a good proposal to be made here. It is a judgment
> >>>>> call, and I think any of "4-space indent," "8-space indent" or "indented
> >>>>> to match correct nesting blocks" can be made to work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LIST COMPREHENSION WRAP:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 9 for "lined up for first term until || is reached
> >>>>> 3 for "indented 4 spaces from {ok above"
> >>>>> 2 for "everything indented 8 spaces"
> >>>>> 1 for "4 spaces from expression start, e.g. after Docs"
> >>>>> 1 for "Don't use multi-line list comprehensions! 4-space indent"
> >>>>> 1 for "no idea" :D
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Code for "lined up for first term until || is reached":
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Docs = [Doc || {ok, Doc} <- [
> >>>>> couch_db:open_doc(Db2, DocInfo2, [deleted, conflicts])
> >>>>> || Docinfo2 <- DocInfos]],
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This was also a very ugly example that I found in our code that I wanted
> >>>>> to use to highlight how difficult it can be to come up with a standard.
> >>>>> The good news is that most people were in the 4- or 8-space camp, i.e.
> >>>>> 1 or 2 level indents, and that perhaps the code needs refactoring. In
> >>>>> the case of refactoring, I definitely agree with Bob: PRs with refactors
> >>>>> should not be combined with PRs for whitespace, or at the very least
> >>>>> should be 2 separate checkins within the same PR.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no unique proposal for this other than to reference the initial
> >>>>> proposal in this post: "Indent your code blocks with 4 spaces. Never use
> >>>>> tabs or a mix of tabs and spaces. When additional indentation levels are
> >>>>> needed, always increment by a multiple of 4 spaces."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> VERTICAL SPACING:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There was no poll question on this but it was brought up a few times on
> >>>>> the list. Going from code and proposals, there are 2 options:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 0 blank lines between function declarations differing only in guards
> >>>>> 1 blank line between different function declarations, imports, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1 blank line between function declarations differing only in guards
> >>>>> 2 blank lines between different function declarations, imports, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can see arguments for both. By inspection most of our code follows
> >>>>> the 0/1 approach, not the 1/2 approach favoured by Paul.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Noah Slater
> > https://twitter.com/nslater
>
A+, Dave
— sent from my Couch
