I'm not a huge fan of the gnu coding standards. To me if the code is good and makes sense the formatting is secondary.
On Friday, October 9, 2009, Matt Rice <ratm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Quentin Mathé <qma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Le 9 oct. 2009 à 20:48, Matt Rice a écrit : >> >>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Nicola Pero >>> <nicola.p...@meta-innovation.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>> By the way the GNU coding standards are not bad, in fact I personally >>>> like >>>> them (mostly because >>>> my eyesight is really bad and whitespace is much more effective at >>>> separating tokens than >>>> brackets or commas). There are some details I'd change, but they >>>> certainly >>>> are not an unusual >>>> or weird choice for a large free software project. >>> >>> To me it is about separating groups of tokens, e.g. if you are going >>> to separate like this >>> >>> [thing foo: arg1 bar: arg2]; >>> >>> and insist on including that space between the 'foo:arg1' group, >>> the whole message send looks androgynous with parts of the selectors >>> mixed in with their arguments... >>> >>> compared with >>> [thing foo:arg1 bar:arg2]; >>> >>> it is very easy for me to pick out which args go with which parts of >>> the selector, and >>> which message is being sent... >> >> Well it's possible to argue in the opposite way :-) >> The first version is more readable than the second, because it's very easy >> to spot each 'colon + white space' combination. >> Then you know the left part is a method keyword and the right part is the >> argument. >> In the second case, 'colons' without white space seems slower to find >> because they are lost in the middle of other characters. >> >> The first version is also closer to the spirit of Smalltalk, in the sense >> the punctuation related spacing is similar to a real sentence. >> imo Smalltalk code with this spacing style is clearer than Smalltalk code >> without a space between each method keyword and argument pair. >> This point is less important in Objective-C given the whole language syntax >> is far less clean (C syntax + brackets everywhere). But it still matters a >> bit I think. I agree I'm getting really subjective here :-) > > > of course... each language is different in scheme > (+(+ 1 2) 3) looks horrible compared to > (+ (+ 1 2) 3) > > I'm assuming that RMS being a lisp programmer, this must be the reason > why the GNU coding standards do it this way, but that doesn't make it > right for objective-c. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnustep-dev mailing list > Gnustep-dev@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev > -- Gregory Casamento Open Logic Corporation, Principal Consultant ## GNUstep Chief Maintainer yahoo/skype: greg_casamento, aol: gjcasa (240)274-9630 (Cell), (301)362-9640 (Home) _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
