And I have to say you're wrong. Reading code is what its all about after all. Think about it, its how 'readable' some code is that the standards try to push.
By adopting *one* way a formatting code for *reading* you allow everyone to sing off the same hymn sheet, it therefore makes sense to adop that *writing* style yourself. If you want to deviate form that for your own personal use then I'd suggest the owness is on you to have tools to allow that, not to expect everyone else to have to adopt things to cope with your requirement. (like tabs)
And, if you're like us and you use pair-programming, it becomes doubly critical :o)
Plus, Tabs suck! ;o)
Cheers
Simon
Dossy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">On 2002.11.12, Simon Millward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Surely you are contradicting yourself? A standard is just that; a common
way of doing something.
Right.The whole purpose of a standard is to 'remove' preference and choice.
I disagree.
It's not to remove preference and choice. It's to reduce or eliminate
variation of the output of the work effort.
The process that each individual craft worker uses to produce the work
shouldn't be imposed by the standard (unless, that too is critical to
the actual output of the work effort).
In other words: I believe a Coding Standard is to ensure that ALL the
code looks like one person wrote it all ... not to enforce one person's
preferences for code formatting on every other person who has to read
the code.
I think there's a big difference.
-- Dossy
--
Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/
"He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
.
-- Simon Millward Director OpenMSG Limited +44 (0) 7818 045 801
Tel: +44 (0)1225 48 48 05 Fax: +44 (0)1225 31 6789 Web http://www.open-msg.net Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of OpenMSG Ltd.
