RE: Bad coding standards

["Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil>]

(was Re: constant string array)


Ken Garlington wrote:

> I say, why stop at one set? I think a nice rule would be to encode tests
in
> double parentheses, similar to label constructs, i.e.
> 
> if ((a * b + c)) then
>   ...
> end if;
> 
> so that, if you're doing structural test coverage analysis, you can find
the
> essential elements easily. Wouldn't that just be a lovely standard?

Well, I suppose they had to stop somewhere, as all standards do.

Assuming you're being facetious, I assume no-one is under the
delusion that everyone out there in the Ada world, or even
everyone on CLA, uses the same style guide, or even likes
everything about the coding standards they're using.  After
all, style guides are subjective.  It's not science.  If it
were, there would probably be only one style guide (maybe two).
But instead it is subject to preference.  Using upper case
or lower case has no bearing on how the code runs.
Unless your talking about style guide issues that specify
using "for loops" as opposed to a "slices", or using "case"
statements instead of an "if" statements, then it has no
impact on the operation or performance of the software, just
aesthetics.

Is there supposed to be an "official" style guide all Ada
developers are to be using (the implied LRM standard, Ada
Quality and Style, ...)?

All I was saying in the very beginning was I wasn't willing
to fight over the paren issue in conditional statements, but
when they said you couldn't use "use" and you also couldn't
use "renames", we went to war.  There was no way I was going
to use full path names on the operators.  Fortunately, no-one
seems to object to "use type".

Fortunately, none of coding standards I've used have been as
bad as the one's Marc described.

Frank