Code formatting patterns (was: [squeak-dev] The Trunk:
Compiler-cmm.275.mcz)
Bert Freudenberg
bert at freudenbergs.de
Fri Oct 4 18:44:13 UTC 2013
On 2013-10-04, at 20:02, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> This precise proposal is argued against by "Inline Message Pattern"
> (pg. 172 of the book). Method body's would be starting in all
> different vertical places, your eyes have to "find" it. And by
> consuming more vertical space it will result in more required
> scrolling. Methods are often very short, would we really want to see
> the message pattern take up more space than the body?
You're putting up a straw man here. Nobody is proposing to always put a keyword on a new line. That would make no sense at all.
However, if you have a pattern with many and long keywords, then putting in explicit line breaks may be preferable to the automatic line wrapping. You would do that to group the keywords semantically.
- Bert -
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-10-04, at 18:31, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 04-10-2013, at 9:23 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That said, I could live with your version below, in particular if it was automatically produced. It just doesn't feel as nice as the hand-formatted one which even takes into account the semantics of keywords to find suitable breaks.
>>>
>>>
>>> We need a pragma to describe how a method's name is formatted by automagic formatters.
>>> copyTo: resultBuf from: start to: stop) from: buf startingAt: firstInBuf normalize: nFactor dcOffset: offset
>>> <pragma format: (3 5 7)>
>>> self wibble: buf….
>>>
>>> The pragma says keep the first 3 keyword fragments together, then the next 2 and then the last 2, all as advisory input
>>
>>
>> Well, or just use line breaks in the method pattern.
>>
>> - Bert -
>>
>>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|