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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,259541b8a8a12b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-12-29 06:08:07 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.online.be!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!warm.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.kvaerner.com!news@kvaerner.com From: "Tarjei T. Jensen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Bad coding standards - aesthetics are irrelevant Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:02:37 +0100 Organization: Kvaerner Group IT Message-ID: <92i5hu$ktl9@news.kvaerner.com> References: <3A429639.53D3EA9E@acm.org> <92fobl$f93$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A4B9FB8.AFD69726@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 155.209.157.235 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2120.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3450 Date: 2000-12-29T15:02:37+01:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic >Identifier capitalization is just one instance where automation can't >universally apply and definitely not the best example because there are >ways of at least mostly-automating it with some possible human >intervention. There are others that can't be dealt with as easily. Quite the opposite I should think. As long as one uses the way it is written in the declaration then there should be no problem. The disadvantage is that the prettyprinter would have to know where to obtain the declaration and parse the relevant files to obtain the information. This is of course very easy :-) Apart from that the first occurence rule sounds very reasonable. Failing that the ada vendors could agree on a convention for special comments to be used for pretty printing directives. E.g. -- ## PP appearance Rotor_RPM