On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Also, judging by the ENORMOUS number of source code changes, "everyone" was not following the informal guidelines. Matt > 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 > -- 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/20130121/33678a24/attachment.html>
