On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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. >> > > If it's significant enough to affect ease of reading, then it's > significant enough to specify. Most coding guidelines have adopted the form > that Barry likes. _You_ are now advocating unconventional formatting on the > grounds that it's easier for you to read, without regard for what anyone > else finds easier to read. > Again, the data does not support you. An incredible number of instances, and almost all files were changed. Thus, this was far from "unconventional". _You_ are not even entertaining the possibility that small variability in source can be tolerated. That is incredibly close minded. 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/ec460a8a/attachment.html>
