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