Re: Bad coding standards - aesthetics are irrelevant

[Erik Magnuson <maderikm@my-deja.com>]

In article <3A429639.53D3EA9E@acm.org>,
  Marin David Condic <mcondic.nospam@acm.org> wrote:
> Not everything about style - including asthetics - can be resolved
effectively
> by a machine. For example, you might have an identifier: Rotor_RPM.
Automatic
> case rules would have a hard time noting that RPM is an abbreviation
and
> should be upper case. Or it could just preserve case as it was given,
but then
> what stops someone from writing rotor_rpm which might violate the
coding
> conventions?

Way back when I wrote* an Ada pretty-printer, I used a simple rule:
Preserve the case of the 1st usage you see for each identifier and make
all the rest conform to that case. If you were processing multiple
files, you could "seed" the pretty-printer with exceptions like
Rotor_RPM. The other common approach is to have a second pass change
all of the project std. acronyms, but I thought my approach was more
general.

--
Erik

* OK, I did not write it from scratch. I modified one of the ones from
the old Ada source code archive.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/