I am not opposed in principle. I say we have an opt-out mechanism for files. We initially opt everyone out and start putting in files to test.
Matt On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > What does everyone think of having a pretty printer automatically called > at hg commit for .c and .h files in PETSc? > > I played with uncrustify and it looks pretty good. Just by changing its > options I could reproduce much of the PETSc style guide and it is open > source portable C++ so we could add addition features. For example, I cannot > get it to respect keeping single line if () commands on that same line and I > like to keep them on one line. > > Does anyone have experience with using pretty printers in this manner? > > Barry > > Note if we could get pretty printers coordinated in this way we could each > have OUR OWN coding style and when we get files from a repository it comes > into our style and when it goes out it goes back to the "standard" style. > Then all of you won't have to live with my perverse ideas of what the code > should look like in the editor. Basically convert to your style on loading > into Emacs/VIM and convert back to standard on each save. The conversion has > to be such that it does not introduce bogus changes to Mecurial, taking a > file to your standard then back to PETSc's standard should not change it. > > Why would I even suggest this? Maybe it could be the first tiny step in > moving away from thinking about source code as just a bunch of characters in > a file to something that has a lot of internal structure we should take > advantage of. > > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100228/14f7366d/attachment.html>
