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: 103376,8811b64ee948c3e3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: abn@news.sema-grenoble.fr (Axel Boness)
Subject: Re: Code Formatters
Date: 1996/11/12
Message-ID: <1996Nov12.094644.560@inet2>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 196078885
distribution: world
sender: abn@simclu.sema-grenoble.fr (Axel Boness)
references: <552nkb$u1k@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com> <327A17CA.6B30@gsfc.nasa.gov>   
organization: Sema Group
reply-to: Axel.Boness@Sema-Grenoble.Fr
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



In article <dewar.847456987@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
|>Axel says
|>
|>"Therefore I would like to work with a language where presentation is
|>normalised  (enforced by the editor) even if it's not as beautifull as
|>it may be."

I meant "enforced by the language". I deeply apologise not to have
reread my posting before submitting it. It took me a lot of time to
write the posting because english is not my mother tongue, and I didn't
give myself time to reread (well I have to work from time to time :-).

|>For a *language* that enforces style, COBOL comes closest probably, but
|>still leaves LOTS unsaid, and extensive coding standards are still needed.
|>I know of no *language* so tightly defined as to make auxiliary style
|>guidelines unnecessary.

There are two major kinds of rules:
1) presentation (I mean indentation, line size, relative position of
keywords, ...)
2) programming style (choice of the identifier (size and meaning), volume
of the comments, size of the subprograms...)

Type 1) rule may be clearly expressed even if the result of
applying these rules is not always good looking. There are always
pathological cases.
Type 2) rule are part of the programming activity and are personnal to
each developper even if it's possible to give bounds with programming
rules (like those in the Ada style guidebook).

|>Of these, I prefer checks in the compiler (as we use in GNAT, with -gnatg)
|>but these are seldome more than very simple issues. I personally don't
|>like any editor that messes with me in any way (I hate templates or any
|>kind of on the fly fixup of what I type), but others really like editors
|>that help out (e.g. Ada mode in EMACS).

I do have problems with such editors. But if it's the price to pay to
have homogeneous code (I mean presentation), I'm willing to pay, if it's
"universal".

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Axel Boness

http://www.anywhere.com/standard_disclaimer.html

Tel : (33) 4 76 41 46 00 (4811)        Fax : (33) 4 76 41 47 47
E-Mail : Axel.Boness@Sema-Grenoble.fr