I also code in the same way as Sven’s example. For more advanced things, why
not to have:
self xxx
ifTrue:
[ self bla.
self foo
or
self xxx
ifTrue: [ self bla.
self foo
this are the interesting things to me. I guess I should read Kent Beck's
formatting rules :) but one more thing that I like to have is
anObject
a: param1;
cascading: param2;
message: param3;
formatted: param4
Although there are some issues around it.
Uko
> On 03 Sep 2015, at 07:29, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And what happened to the plain normal (in my mind/experience) ?
>
> self xxx
> ifTrue: [
> self bla.
> self foo ].
>
> I would say that is the most common one I've seen in the image. And it is how
> the old formatter worked.
>
>> On 03 Sep 2015, at 03:39, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> have you read Kent Beck's formatting rules? I wish we would adhere to
>> these in our formatters. And I wish he would put the formatting rules in
>> the public domain on the web (Kent?). He actually justifies the rules he
>> chooses; they're not just personal preferences. And IMO they produce
>> eleant, readable Smalltalk. I have to say your block formatting below is
>> horrible. Blocks are blocks. [ & ] are /not/ the same as { & } in C.
>> [...] define an *object*, not merely delimit syntax. As such any good
>> Smalltalk format will emphasize the objectness of blocks. And IMNERHO that
>> is to make them rectangles as in
>>
>> self ifIWantedYouToWriteC ifTrue:
>> [self useABloodyCCompiler.
>> self useCCMinusPToMakeSenseOfTheDamageDoneByTheCPreProcessor]
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:28 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I do not really like all the formattings of kent. Because sometimes it just
>>> does not work.
>>> But this is why we ask franck (an interns to start to have a look).
>>>
>>> For example I do not like
>>>
>>> self xxx
>>> ifTrue:
>>> [
>>> self bla
>>> self foo.
>>
>> Agreed. Unneccessary waste of a line.
>>
>>> in the current default formatter.
>>> and I prefer
>>>
>>> self xxx
>>> ifTrue: [ self bla.
>>> self foo
>>> But here the problem is that the self foo is not tab aligned because
>>> ifTrue: [
>>>
>>> self xxx
>>> ifTrue:
>>> [ self bla.
>>> self foo
>>> So may be this one is a nice compromise
>>
>> Not quite there. The "self bla" is still not actually vertically aligned.
>>
>>> I think that we should change some settings. In fact in alpha things are
>>> there to evolve until the release :)
>>
>> I like...
>> self xxx
>> ifTrue:
>> [ self bla.
>> self foo.
>> ].
>>
>> for three reasons:
>> * the first statement of the block is vertically aligned with the rest
>> * vertical alignment of paired brackets makes visual matching *simple*
>> * the vertical whitespace enforced by the closing bracket on its
>> own visually groups blocks.
>>
>> Now some people don't like the closing brace on its own because they
>> prefer code density. So maybe this...
>>
>> self xxx
>> ifTrue:
>> [ self bla.
>> self foo. ]
>> ifFalse:
>> [ self baa.
>> self moo. ].
>>
>> But still I prefer...
>>
>> self xxx
>> ifTrue:
>> [ self bla.
>> self foo.
>> ]
>> ifFalse:
>> [ self baa.
>> self moo.
>> ].
>>
>> cheers -ben
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _,,,^..^,,,_
>> best, Eliot
>
>
