On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>wrote: > >> There is no getting over this. This is exactly why people hate these >> standards. Prescribing a few, coarse >> features is fine and improves readability. Specifying the tiniest details >> is senseless and intrusive fascism. >> > > Uniform code means that we don't have to "look around" to find what style > is being used in that source file. It also means that we can more easily > write and verify scripts that manipulate the source. Most mature projects > have coding guidelines that specify this stuff. PETSc had an informal > guideline that almost everyone except you followed. Yes, we can read the > code either way, but visual consistency is good. There are many good places > for personal expression; source code formatting on a communal project is > not one of them. > Again, there are limits to everything, and this surpasses the useful limit to this kind of specification. This is not personal expression, this is ease of reading. Matt -- 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/20130121/45b0c7d8/attachment.html>
