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: 103376,21bbcb8deeeab673 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nickerson@pundit.ds.boeing.com () Subject: Re: Ada95 Pretty-Printers/Coding styles Date: 1997/06/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 250996588 Sender: nickerson@mirage.boeing.com () X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pundit.ds.boeing.com References: <33A54D07.4E14@aisf.com> Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group / Software Systems Reply-To: nickerson@pundit.ds.boeing.com () Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: .. |>To get a really cooperative environment, in which everyone looks at every |>one else's code and there is as little sense of code ownership as possible, |>it is essential that everyone buy into a common style. It is definitely |>possible to come close to the ideal of 100% working in unison, and it is |>a desirable goal. .. ??? code ownership is bad, one can't work on or understand or appreciate code not in ones own style, differences in style significantly negate cooperation, working 100% in unision requires a common style ??? is all of that really the ACT (or your) philosophy; to me it starts looking like you believe that form is the only cohesive force; --bn (Bart Nickerson) nickerson@pundit.ds.boeing.com (206) 662-0183