Back to the issue... (was RE: Squeak coding style...)
Doug Way
dway at mailcan.com
Thu Mar 4 20:50:15 UTC 2004
goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
>...
>So to back up a bit - I am *SIMPLY* saying exactly *THIS*:
>
>- Perhaps it would benefit the quality of the standard packages if they
>follow a few, good, small, simple, perhaps even automatically enforcable
>coding conventions, do you all agree? (not saying anything about how
>many conventions we are talking about or what they are - just asking
>"Should we have them?")
>
>- Ok, if you do agree with that, what do you think might be a few, good,
>small, simple, perhaps even automatically enforcable coding conventions?
>
>
Despite the arguing back and forth, I think we could come up with a
small list. The only question is whether it would be small, or very
small. :)
For example, I think we could agree that enforcing a class comment could
be on the list. The only person objecting somewhat to this (Lex) agreed
that it would still be a reasonable standard... I don't think anyone
else objected.
It might be tougher to get agreement on any method style guidelines, but
you could always try. ;) I wouldn't want a large number of guidelines
myself.
- Doug
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|