on 1/11/02 1:26 PM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 1/11/02 1:09 PM, "Gabriel Sidler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I don't want to waste time and bandwidth on this issues. If one single person
>> on this list feels that the standard bracket convention should also be
>> applied
>> in this specific case I am going to change the file and make it conform.
>>
>> Gabe
>
> Thanks for making me ask 3 times now.
>
> -jon
I should also add that you are welcome to propose that we change the current
conventions to whatever you want...especially since you have developer
status now.
However, you are not allowed to make up and use your own conventions without
getting agreement from the committers on this project first.
In case you forgot, the documented conventions are here:
<http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/code-standards.html>
Having said all of that, you will have a really hard time getting me to
agree to change the coding conventions to be the way that you suggest. Not
even the JLS (Java Language Spec) has anything close to your idea of
conventions. I suspect that the reason is that those conventions cannot be
automated. In other words, you can't run a style fixer on the current
version of MathTool and have it come out the way that you wrote it because
it would be very difficult to give it enough information to tell it that
certain code should be put into one line.
Lastly, you also broke the other rule of having 80 columns. For example...
public static final double pow (double base, double power) { return
java.lang.Math.pow(base, power); }
<http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc3.html#313>
thanks,
-jon
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
