On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:28:49AM -0400, David Davis wrote:
> I agree for the most part that Ruby is a TMTOWTDI [1] language but I think
> most people would argue for some level of consistency (i.e.
> TIMTOWTDIBSCINABTE). A rather extreme example would be indentation. You can
> use whatever indentation in Ruby you want but you should probably try to
> use the same number of spaces in a project. As such, Rubocop tries to
> ensure consistency by allowing you to configure IndentationWidth cop.
Like I said, I'm mostly a Python guy and prefer a single way so you
don't have to convince me. Pushing that on a Ruby project may be
swimming against the current.
> Speaking of consistency: the Cop for HashSyntax can be configured to
> prevent mixed syntax. For example, it would prevent:
>
> { a: 1,
> :b => 2,
> c: 3,
> }
>
> Maybe we should at least enforce this?
One style per hash sounds totally reasonable to me.
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_more_than_one_way_to_do_it
>
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:43:31AM -0400, David Davis wrote:
> > > I would hope that all foreman and foreman-related projects would have
> > some
> > > level of rubocop checking even if it’s just basic stuff like whitespace
> > (I
> > > tried to do this for dynflow but closed my PR out after it had conflicts
> > > and no activity).
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the core of the problem is that
> > some people prefer one and only one way of doing things. You see this in
> > the Zen of Python[1]:
> >
> > There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
> >
> > Ruby is heavily influenced by Perl which does the opposite and to me
> > appears to support doing things in as many ways as possible.
> >
> > This particular case (hash rockets) is allowing logically equal
> > statements to be written in two different ways. Here the two
> > philosophies collide causing conflict.
> >
> > Beyond PEP 8[2] is a related talk that's great. The speaker goes into
> > simple syntax issues vs real style. While the subject is PEP 8, it
> > applies to non-Python as well. The summary is embrace the language and
> > follow the conventions, but focus on the bigger API instead of the
> > details.
> >
> > While personally I'm in the Python camp here (pick one way and stick
> > with it), I don't feel like I submit sufficient code to have a say in
> > this. My feeling is that there's no logical or quality difference and
> > Ruby allows both styles which is common among Ruby code. Therefor both
> > should be allowed.
> >
> > [1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/
> > [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-BqAjZb8M
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "foreman-dev" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to [email protected].
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "foreman-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"foreman-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
