From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,15890893c0618a8a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: JP Thornley Subject: Re: [Q] Tools for Ada Quality and Style Date: 1996/04/29 Message-ID: <165492028wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 152184686 x-nntp-posting-host: diphi.demon.co.uk references: <9604172134.AA27114@eight-ball> <767968529wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk> <4ltjat$dao@parlor.hiwaay.net> x-mail2news-path: disperse.demon.co.uk!post.demon.co.uk!diphi.demon.co.uk organization: None reply-to: jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > Bob Crispen was looking for pretty printing tools to enforce a standard. > Actually that was me ... > I must say I do not like this approach. For uniform style rules to work, > everyone has to buy into them, and buying into them means getting > completely familiar with them and not considering writing code in any > other style. > > If you rely on pretty printing tools, then there is a danger of continuing > to foster a sloppy attitude to the style rules. > I have a lot of sympathy for this view, but, as an example, I also see the point of view of a programmer who has to re-align all the parameters in a procedure (declaration and all its calls) because another parameter with a slightly longer name has been added. A pretty-printer also makes it feasible to introduce layout rules at an upgrade and not just at the beginning of a development (and many of our systems go through a series of planned upgrades over a number of years). > I *do* like tools that enforce style rules, to the extent that this is > possible. Many style rules are simply too indefinite to enforce > mechanically. > I'm really looking for something that deals with the areas that the Quality and Style documents say are easily handled by an automated tool (mainly Chapters 2 and 3). I would be (almost) as happy with an automated conformance checker. (I can't see manual conformance checking being a possibility unless the culture is established right at the start.) What experience generally do people have with pretty-printers and/or conformance checkers? Are the rules generally too difficult to enforce automatically? (I remember being quite happy with the Rational editor around 88/89, but I can't remember exactly what it did.) Phil Thornley -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | JP Thornley EMail jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk | ------------------------------------------------------------------------