Not only comments, literal formatting is also important...
If I want to put line breaks and tabs inside a #( ... ), the formatter
shall not break it.
If I want to write 2r0110, there must be a reason, and the formatter shall
not normalize to 6.


2013/10/8 Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>

> > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2013-10-06, at 20:25, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > hence we're left with the war between visual thinkers (rectangular
> >> > blocks) and verbal thinkers (pascal formatting).  just throwing wood
> on the
> >> > fire ;-)
> >>
> >> I very much like rectangular blocks as the general formatting rule; this
> >> is how Smalltalk code looks "naturally" to me. However, you must *not*
> put a
> >> space inside the brackets because then they draw too much attention,
> >> standing there on their own:
> >>
> >>         [this is
> >>         rectangular]
> >
> >
> > Ian Piumarta and I are anal enough to prefer
> >
> >         [this is
> >          rectangular
> >          and nicely indented]
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> >>
> >> vs
> >>
> >>         [ this is not
> >>         as rectangular ]
> >
> >
> > yuck.  Ugly as sin.  Hate the extra whitespace.  I like
> asSortedCollection:
> > [:a :b| a < b], *not* *horrible* [ :a :b |, or even *worse*, [ : a : b |
> > (argh)... ;-)
>
> I guess there's no accounting for taste.  :)
>
> My gripe with [:each | each doSomething] is that word-selection then
> includes the colon, which is a pain when you want to Command+h,
> Command+g it.  Plus, [: each | each doSomething] is consistent with
> method signatures, an anonymous selector.
>
> >> Conventional wisdom says in that case one should refactor the method
> >> because it got too complex, which I agree to if there is a part that
> makes
> >> sense as its own method. However, I personally don't like one-off
> private
> >> methods just for the sake of simplifying one method. These typically
> need
> >> many arguments, have perhaps multiple return values, so the resulting
> >> complexity is not worth doing it.  Or am I missing something?
> >
> > Nope.  +1.
> >
> > If it weren't for comments (and comments are /really/ important) we'd
> have
> > implemented a parameterised formatted by now that auto-formatted code to
> the
> > preferences of the reader and this would all be moot.  But without a
> good AI
> > I don't see how to spot and preserve while reformatting multi-line
> comments,
> > comments with diagrams in them, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Right the formatter butchers comments is all the more reason I lean
> toward composing methods to expose more meaning.  Auto-formatting is
> too valuable to give up.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20131008/c1fe08e7/attachment.htm