Was there any progress on this lately? I've noticed that atom-beautify plugin doesn't have Julia support(https://github.com/Glavin001/atom-beautify/issues/799), but there doesn't seem to be a tool that it can hook into.
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 9:22:14 AM UTC-8, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Kind of. I don't think that expression printing is even remotely good > enough for this yet, but that's the basic idea that makes the most sense to > me. No point in using separate parse or print code when there's already > functions that do this stuff. > > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Job van der Zwan <j.l.van...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> So you are saying that the most of the tooling required for an >> auto-formatting tool is already there? >> >> On Thursday, 9 January 2014 14:42:40 UTC+1, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >>> >>> I would be into having an auto-formatting tool. The way to do this would >>> be to work on the printing of ASTs until the way the code prints is the >>> standard way it should be formatted. Then you have an auto-formatter: parse >>> the code and print the resulting AST. One missing thing is that parser >>> currently discards comments. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Job van der Zwan <j.l.van...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The problem I see with that is that you can wait for a *very* long >>>> time before any consensus emerges. There are simply many choices to be >>>> made >>>> in that regard which at the end of the day are kind of arbitrary - that >>>> *a* choice is made and consistently followed is more important, and >>>> again the benefit of autoformatting is that you don't have to waste >>>> putting >>>> effort into doing so. >>>> >>>> Having something something concrete to respond to also helps with the >>>> discussion - an autoformatting tool will impose a certain style, which >>>> will >>>> drive the discussion of standardising proper style. If people disagree >>>> with >>>> the formatting it provides, great! That means a discussion is triggered. >>>> >>>> So instead of waiting for a consensus to emerge, I think that building >>>> an autoformatting tool with a "good enough first guess" in terms of style >>>> would be the place to start. Even if it starts out with terrible style >>>> choices otherwise. >>>> >>>> (is this worth starting a separate discussion on the topic?) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, 9 January 2014 03:18:05 UTC+1, John Myles White wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is not yet, because there is still not a consensus on proper >>>>> style. Hopefully once we have that, it will be easier to make a julia fmt >>>>> tool. >>>>> >>>>> — John >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:09 PM, Job van der Zwan <j.l.van...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Depends on what you mean with legibility. >>>>> > >>>>> > For example (and not at all related to x.f(y) vs f(x, y)), if I look >>>>> at my experience with the Go programming language, once you get used to >>>>> its >>>>> imposed One True Way of formatting it really makes reading other people's >>>>> source code a lot easier. And talking about spending energy on the >>>>> subject >>>>> of legibility: setting up my editor to use go-fmt (the autoformatting >>>>> tool) >>>>> when building/saving code means I don't have to spend any time thinking >>>>> about it when writing my own code either; it will automatically get >>>>> fixed. >>>>> > >>>>> > It's one of those things the Go developers are very enthusiastic >>>>> about, and at first you go "really? That's a killer feature?" but after >>>>> using it you do start to miss it in other languages. >>>>> > >>>>> > Speaking of which, is there an autoformatting tool for Julia? >>>>> >>>> >>> >
