On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
>  On 10.03.2010, at 02:53, commits at source.squeak.org wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> +       ^packageList ifNil:[packageList := (PackageInfo allPackages
>>> collect: [ :each | each packageName]) sort]!
>>> -       ^packageList ifNil:[packageList := (MCWorkingCopy allManagers
>>> collect:[:each| each packageName]) sort]!
>>>
>>
>>
>> This to me replaces one style of too few spaces with another of too many
>> ;)
>>
>> I'd have written
>>
>>        collect: [:each | each packageName]
>>
>> but I just looked at the Blue Book and there indeed is a space before and
>> after a block argument. OTOH it does conform to Kent's examples:
>>
>>        http://c2.com/ppr/formatting.html
>>
>>
> I try not to change the formatting of methods written by others to my
> taste, but there are times when I just can't stop myself. This one liner is
> half baked though...
> If this was written by me entirely it would look like something like this:
>
>
>        ^packageList ifNil: [
>                packageList := (PackageInfo allPackages collect: [ :each |
>                        each packageName ]) sort ]
>
> I used to add a space before and after all [ and ].
>
>
>  Generally I feel this is not much of a problem. But I have occasionally
>> seen rather strange formatting, So for the benefit of better readability, do
>> we want to have general rules for formatting code?
>>
>> Many projects have such rules. One good example IMHO is PEP-8 in the
>> Python community.
>>
>> For Smalltalk I only know Kent Beck's rules from "Best Practice Patterns"
>> which seem like a good set. And IMHO any rules are better than none, so
>> maybe we want to just agree that if in doubt, follow that suggested
>> practice?
>>
>>
> If someone has his/her own code formatting rules, he/she will hardly change
> to another. I find my rules (which are mostly based on this book:
> http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/WithStyle/SmalltalkWithStyle.pdf) very readable, especially with shout which colorizes the brackets too.
>
> Therefore I'm against of forcing a single code formatting. I personally
> dislike Kent's "rectangular block" idea.
> For example:
> I found this more readable
>
> aCollection
>        do: [ :each |
>                stream
>                        nextPut: $(;
>                        print: each;
>                        nextPut: $) ]
>        separatedBy: [
>                stream
>                        nextPut: $,;
>                        space ]
>
> than this
>
> aCollection
>        do:
>                [:each |
>                stream
>                        nextPut: $(;
>                        print: each;
>                        nextPut: $)]
>        separatedBy:
>                [stream
>                        nextPut: $,;
>                        space]
>
> You can notice the rectangular shape in both examples.
>

But with Kent's approach a block's contents lie within its rectangular area.
 With your first example only "Put: $(;" and "ce" lie within the block and
that breaks the appearance of a rectangular block, being more like a potato
sack bulging at the side ;) and is inelegant, ugly, etc, etc.  So...


I think the best would be a highly customizable pretty printer which would
> allow anyone to read all methods formatted in the way he/she prefers.
>

+1


>
>
> Levente
>
>
>  - Bert - (hoping this does not open a can of worms ...)
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20100310/60f7b56a/attachment.htm