On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote:
> An hour ago, Greg Hendershott wrote: > [...] > > You know that old saying, "I apologize for the length of this letter > > but I didn't have time to make it shorter"? I hope your code is the > > result of multiple revisions. Because if you tell me it comes out > > this way on your first try, I'm going to be very scared. :) > > Heh, I pay too much attention to how the code looks like... I have > very strict rules about it, and I almost never let myself go around > them, even when I debug it. (This results in some incompatibilities > with the currently blessed style -- for example, I keep code at a > width of <=79 chars (or in rare cases at 80); but OTOH I stick in most > cases to putting as much on one line as possible within this limit.) > I'd be very interested in what your rules are. Could you expand a little please? Personally, although I do lack rigor, I tend to apply the "Never write the same thing twice" principle (except I have yet no real principle about where the compression must stop, though the length of the identifiers does not count). I don't have (for now) a hard limit of 80 chars, mainly because of wide-screens and indentation, though I don't like long code lines with many things stuffed in, so I might be closer to "80 chars from the start of the line". Laurent
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
