On 07/13/2014 07:51 PM, Brian Rogoff wrote:
On Sunday, 13 July 2014 at 17:24:40 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07/13/2014 06:45 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Wrong. There are things which are simply bad ideas.
E.g. in this case, "Egyptian"-style braces definitely make your code
more compact,
I.e. you see where everything is.
Yes, the same argument for books and slides is also applicable to all
other media.
Exactly.
This style has also caught on amongst the other curly
braced languages that I use, so that most of the code I read (and write)
has adopted it (C/C++/Java/Javascript code, that is). The Phobos style
is incredibly wasteful IMO, but that's what D has adopted, so if you
intend to contribute to Phobos, you had better get used to it.
The Rust community appears to have made the right choice with Egyptian
for everything.
...
Yup, but they also do horrible things like using '+' to denote
intersection (multiple trait bounds).
but separate-line opening braces definitely make it easier
to see where scopes begin and end.
All of this is subjective, of course, but I definitely don't find that
the Phobos style provides this advantage.
This is the only argument I have heard in favour of doing this, but it
is not actually valid. This critique might apply to Lisp style.
Not sure I follow you here. Most of the Lisp I've read is indented like
Python, the idea being that you learn not to not see all of the parens
and rely on tools like paredit to do the trivial balancing. I'd hate to
read Lisp with separate lines for parens that open scopes. I'm sure
that's not what you mean!
I was suggesting that if someone does this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style#Lisp_style
Then I would have an easier time seeing where a person is coming from
who claims that it makes it in some way harder to see at a glance where
scopes begin and end.
