On 19/05/2010, at 7:29 PM, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: >> local splitpath, expandpath = file.split_path, kpse.expand_path >> local gsub, match, rpadd = string.gsub, string.match, string.rpadd > > It's not obfuscation, it's Hans' style :-) I'm not a big fan either, > but I got used to it, reading ConTeXt's Lua source code.
Well, that's the whole point -- once you're used to it, it's fine :) I don't have a huge objection to it and I can see how it's useful when you're re-using many many functions. But it's just a bit inconsistent when you've got expandpath (=kpse.expand_path) but then go and use kpse.expand_var in the same file. And it adds an extra line of code to the beginning of the script. Sorry to complain. I just haven't eaten yet and it's late :) I'm perfectly happy to leave things as are. (Although I might judiciously edit once in a while.) (P.S. Not that I'm one to talk about consistency or good code when you take a look inside fontspec.dtx!) > I think I've seen it under Roberto's pen in _Programming in Lua_ but > can't be sure. I do seem to recall he mentions it, yes... >> Also, four spaces for indenting? Again, is this standard? > > This is K&R, Will! I think they used four spaces for a single indent, > and a eight-space tab for a double indent (and so on); I personally like > it better than a full eight-space tab because you can have more levels > of indentation ;-) At work we're even using two-space indents (well, > I'm the only one respecting the house style so *I* use a two-space > indent and I've come to like it best). I didn't mean to imply that I preferred tabs; on the contrary. I personally like 2-space-indenting, but mostly only from lots of TeX use, where command names get rather long. In fact, I just wanted to clarify -- this is what we want to do, explicitly? :) -- Will
