It is obvious that a consensus will not be reached on the "one and only true
format."
If my browser displays code formatted the way I want to see it and the
difference tools are format neutral (i.e., the source and target code is
formatted using the same rules) there is no need to agree on a standard style.
For all intents and purposes each developer's favored format _is the standard_.
We only need to agree to disagree and then figure out how to make it possible
to customize the formatter and resolve any other technical details (performance
and others) that are deemed important. These are technical problems with
technical solutions.
Dale
----- "Chris Muller" <asquea...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > Another visual problem with "[" and "]" is that they are but one
| > character, and if you place them together with something else, like
| > "[self", they lose their visual identity (btw, we read words in
| chunks
| > not by characters) and get harder to spot. It's true that some fonts
| > and extra coloring could solve this problem, but whitespace is
| always
| > the best and least invasive design weapon.
|
| Tudor, for what its worth, the white-space surrounding the blocks is
| not really at issue or discussion here. It's about formatting blocked
| code into rectangular shapes.
|
| In fact, I agree with you about your point about the whitespace. IOW,
| I prefer:
|
| someVar = someValue
| ifTrue: [ self doOneThing ]
| ifFalse:
| [ self
| doOtherThing ;
| doYetAnotherThing.
| anotherObject doSomething ]
|
| Not:
|
| someVar = someValue
| ifTrue: [self doOneThing]
| ifFalse:
| [self
| doOtherThing ;
| doYetAnotherThing.
| anotherObject doSomething]
|
| Perhaps if you looked at a longer method example, with nested blocks,
| you might be able to "see", visually, the blocks more obviously.
| Perhaps not, I don't know.
|
| Regards,
| Chris
|
| > The lines are clearly belonging together, [ is clearly observed and
| > clicking anywhere on the first line after [ will select the whole
| block.
| >
| > Yet another thing it solves is the consistency between block and
| > method. They both define behavior, and thus it would be great if
| they
| > would be treated similarly. This is better seen in the context of a
| > block with parameter:
| >
| > aCollection do: [ :each |
| > self something.
| > self somethingElse. ]
| >
| > Just like a method has the top line with the signature and the
| > parameters, a block should be the same. In this case, each is a
| > parameter and it is clearly distinct from everything else. When
| there
| > is no parameter, this is information made very clear, too (because
| of
| > the absence of anything following [ ).
| >
| >
| > An argument against this convention was that it looks like C and
| that
| > blocks are not dumb {. While I understand the built-in adversity, we
| > are talking about a visual notation that makes sense for Smalltalk
| and
| > not one that make it different from everything else around us.
| >
| > Another option would be to have:
| > boolean ifTrue:
| > [ self clearCaches.
| > self current soleInstance yada yada blah blah
| > self recomputeAngle ]
| >
| > with everything inside the block being aligned. However, this has
| the
| > problem of wasting space. One space can also be used, but only when
| > the font is monospaced, so it would not work in general.
| Furthermore,
| > it would be inconsistent or even more space wasting when it comes to
| > blocks with parameters.
| >
| > Cheers,
| > Doru
| >
| >
| > On 4 Mar 2010, at 03:38, Chris Muller wrote:
| >
| >>>> ifTrue: [
| >>>> line1 yo.
| >>>> line2 eh ]
| >>>
| >>> Horrible, horrible, horrible ;) Poor block. The block is an
| >>> object...
| >>
| >> Exactly what I was thinking; and how some of the new editor
| features
| >> since 3.9, that seem to reify "statements". For example, clicking
| >> inside parens or square-brackets selects that statement(s). I also
| >> really enjoyed the ability to "surround", thereby creating
| additional
| >> statement-levels.
| >>
| >> The whole interaction becomes much more liked working with tiled
| code
| >> rather than a text-editor.
| >>
| >>> I think the conclusion has to be (and I can confirm that the
| >>> VisualWorks
| >>> team was equally divided) that no one formatting regime will make
| >>> every one
| >>> happy and that all regimes will make a substantial minority
| >>> unhappy. So
| >>> perhaps we should step up to having code formatted automatically
| >>> according
| >>> to tailorable preferences.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>> My only concern is comment formatting but the way to deal with
| that
| >>> is to
| >>> use automatic formatting and deal with comment problems as they
| >>> arise. I
| >>> always used to be concerned about e.g. comments spanning multiple
| >>> lines.
| >>> But without day to day exposure I don't think one can know how
| >>> much of an
| >>> issue it is.
| >>
| >> As someone who's logged 5-digits of hours in Squeak these last few
| >> years, I think the best thing is to just not. Let 'em wrap! Use
| >> shout to turn them light gray, so they don't really intrude on the
| >> code, but are there if you want focus on the extra prose.
| >>
| >> Unfortunately, the real problem with comments within BlockNodes is
| how
| >> they duplicate themselves within the parse-tree.. ouch! I hope
| that
| >> is what you and Nicolas were talking about or that you'll have a
| fix
| >> for that..
| >>
| >>> One upside will be less effort reformatting when indent levels
| >>> change. Have
| >>> you noticed that Smalltalk tends to be more difficult to reformat
| >>> than C
| >>> syntax languages, I guess because of keywords? Not having to
| worry
| >>> about
| >>> this could be great.
| >>
| >> Very cool, I hope there'll be enough additional consensus to adopt
| >> these Beckian formats for Squeaks pretty-print refinement.
| >>
| >>> Of course, what format gets written to a source file could still
| be
| >>> a source
| >>> of conflict ;) We may all want our syntax to be the format of
| >>> record :)
| >>
| >> Absolutely. To not, would be the machine dictating to the user.
| >> Invoking automatic formatting is always the users choice.
| >> browseWithPrettyPrint allows readers to have it formatted
| dynamically
| >> if they wish..
| >>
| >> Cheers..
| >>
| >>> P.S. and don't get me started on the trailing period (putrid
| >>> excressence),
| >>> or the space between ^ and the return expression (vomitous mass).
| >>
| >> _______________________________________________
| >> Pharo-project mailing list
| >> Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
| >
| > --
| > www.tudorgirba.com
| >
| > "Live like you mean it."
| >
| >
| > _______________________________________________
| > Pharo-project mailing list
| > Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
| >
|
| _______________________________________________
| Pharo-project mailing list
| Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
| http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
