I like that! Robby
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:54 PM, John Clements <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > >> >> 1. I think the 'unnecessary' gives you some wiggle room here. >> >> 2. I occasionally leave a 'necessary' blank line in code but prefix it with >> ";;" to signal that I left it blank intentionally. >> >> 3. I would write the code below, and I would consider it fine w/o blank >> lines, though yes, I'd add purpose statements to the auxiliaries. > > Can I therefore suggest the following update to the style guide? : > > > 5.8 Spaces > > Don't pollute your code with spaces at the end of lines. > > If you find that your code requires blank lines in order to aid readability, > consider refactoring your program to introduce auxiliary functions and > shorten long blocks of code. > > >>> "5.8 Spaces >>> >>> Don’t pollute your code with spaces at the end of lines and extraneous >>> blank lines." >> >> >> ;; flag-teachpack-requires : syntax nat -> syntax >> ;; apply the 'stepper-skip-completely hint to all >> ;; teachpack requires. >> ;; -- it would be great to do this directly when the >> ;; requires are added, but they're not yet syntax there, >> ;; and this seems like the easiest way to fix it. >> (define (flag-teachpack-requires stx num-teachpacks) >> (syntax-case stx () >> [(mod name lang bodies-stx ...) >> (begin >> (define bodies (syntax->list #'(bodies-stx ...))) >> (*check-teachpacks bodies num-teachpacks) >> (define-values (teachpack-requires remaining-bodies) (split-at bodies >> num-requires)) >> (*check-requires require-form? teachpack-requires) >> ;; -- IN -- >> #'(mod name lang >> #,@(flagged-requires stx teachpack-requires) >> #,@remaining-bodies))])) >> >> (define (*check-teachpacks bodies num-teachpacks) >> (when (< (length bodies) num-teachpacks) >> (error 'flag-teachpack-requires >> "internal error: expected bodies to include teachpack requires, >> got: ~e" >> bodies))) >> >> (define (*check-requires require-form? teachpack-requires) >> (unless (andmap require-form? teachpack-requires) >> (error 'flag-teachpack-requires >> "internal error: expected these to be teachpack requires: ~e" >> teachpack-requires))) >> >> (define (flagged-requires stx teachpack-requires) >> (for/list ([tp-rq (in-list teachpack-requires)]) >> (stepper-syntax-property stx 'stepper-ignore-completely #t))) >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 13, 2012, at 2:16 AM, John Clements wrote: >> >>> The style guide has this to say about blank lines: >>> >>> "5.8 Spaces >>> >>> Don’t pollute your code with spaces at the end of lines and extraneous >>> blank lines." >>> >>> This comes out pretty strongly against "extraneous" blank lines. In writing >>> the code below, though, it seems to me that the blank lines aid >>> readability, and that the version without them (below) just looks scary. >>> Opinions? >>> >>> (To be fair, you really have to view the following in DrR, not in your >>> e-mail program.) >>> >>> First, with extraneous blank lines: >>> >>> ;; flag-teachpack-requires : syntax nat -> syntax >>> ;; apply the 'stepper-skip-completely hint to all >>> ;; teachpack requires. >>> ;; -- it would be great to do this directly when the >>> ;; requires are added, but they're not yet syntax there, >>> ;; and this seems like the easiest way to fix it. >>> (define (flag-teachpack-requires stx num-teachpacks) >>> (syntax-case stx () >>> [(mod name lang bodies-stx ...) >>> (begin >>> >>> (define bodies (syntax->list #'(bodies-stx ...))) >>> >>> (when (< (length bodies) num-teachpacks) >>> (error 'flag-teachpack-requires >>> "internal error: expected bodies to include teachpack >>> requires, got: ~e" >>> bodies)) >>> >>> ;; these should be the teachpack requires: >>> (define-values (teachpack-requires remaining-bodies) >>> (split-at bodies num-requires)) >>> >>> (unless (andmap require-form? teachpack-requires) >>> (error 'flag-teachpack-requires >>> "internal error: expected these to be teachpack requires: ~e" >>> teachpack-requires)) >>> >>> (define flagged-teachpack-requires >>> (for/list ([tp-rq (in-list teachpack-requires)]) >>> (stepper-syntax-property stx 'stepper-ignore-completely #t))) >>> >>> #'(mod name lang >>> #,@flagged-teachpack-requires >>> #,@remaining-bodies))])) >>> >>> >>> Then, without them: >>> >>> ;; flag-teachpack-requires : syntax nat -> syntax >>> ;; apply the 'stepper-skip-completely hint to all >>> ;; teachpack requires. >>> ;; -- it would be great to do this directly when the >>> ;; requires are added, but they're not yet syntax there, >>> ;; and this seems like the easiest way to fix it. >>> (define (flag-teachpack-requires stx num-teachpacks) >>> (syntax-case stx () >>> [(mod name lang bodies-stx ...) >>> (begin >>> (define bodies (syntax->list #'(bodies-stx ...))) >>> (when (< (length bodies) num-teachpacks) >>> (error 'flag-teachpack-requires >>> "internal error: expected bodies to include teachpack >>> requires, got: ~e" >>> bodies)) >>> ;; these should be the teachpack requires: >>> (define-values (teachpack-requires remaining-bodies) >>> (split-at bodies num-requires)) >>> (unless (andmap require-form? teachpack-requires) >>> (error 'flag-teachpack-requires >>> "internal error: expected these to be teachpack requires: ~e" >>> teachpack-requires)) >>> (define flagged-teachpack-requires >>> (for/list ([tp-rq (in-list teachpack-requires)]) >>> (stepper-syntax-property stx 'stepper-ignore-completely #t))) >>> #'(mod name lang >>> #,@flagged-teachpack-requires >>> #,@remaining-bodies))]))_________________________ >>> Racket Developers list: >>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >> > > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev > _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
