On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:

> 3. Adjust the Checkstyle profile to allow "log" and disallow whitespace
>> before and after parantheses. Then remove "log"-related //CS constants
>> and excessive whitespace.
> I would not agree to restricting the style rules to prohibit whitespace
> before/after parentheses. I prefer *always* using whitespace around parens
> in Java (and C/C++).

Allow me to expand on this. I can accept such a rule (for prohibiting
whitespace before/after parens), but only if it is accepted that CSOFF be
used to disable that rule globally in the files of which I am the original
author. That is, I could agree to enforce and use that rule on files I did
not author, as long as I can avoid using that rule on the files I author.

By the way, this is precisely why there are going to always be limits to
obtaining consensus on style rules, particularly on those that are the most
stylistic in nature, of which I would suggest that whitespace distribution
will remain the most subjective.

What to do in such a case? Either don't impose the rule at all, or impose it
as a default while allowing overrides for those that do not concur.

There may indeed be some core set of rules where there is a true consensus
on application and enforcing, some of which may be related to whitespace.
For example, should tabs be permitted? Even though my editor can handle that
with appropriate embedded comments in the code, it is undesirable, and not
everyone uses the same editor. So best stay with NO TABS. On the other hand,
there are other possible rules for which a unanimous consensus will be
impossible, and for those, we can only not employ the rule or employ it
*merely* as a default, allowing overrides.

You will also now notice that we have descended onto that slippery slope of
discussing subjective preferences about style rules. I hope we can climb off
that slope soon and finish this patch in order to progress with useful


Reply via email to