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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,15890893c0618a8a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: [Q] Tools for Ada Quality and Style
Date: 1996/04/30
Message-ID: <dewar.830919875@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 152354825
references: <9604301327.AA12571@eight-ball>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob said

"I believe you'll search in vain for any words of mine that say the
way to implement this process improvement is exclusively or even
chiefly through a prettyprinter."

Oops, sorry I must have slipped in copying the attribution, it's easy
to do sometimes when quoting.

However, I must say, I don't like ANY tools that mess with what I type.
Even tiny ones! If you rely on even tiny tools to clean up your sources,
it means that you are tolerating at least for a limited time, untidy
sources, and I think the best path to uniformity is to foster an
attitude that just can't *stand* to look at code that is not properly
formatted. 

But that's really a small taste matter, basically I think we are pretty
much in agreement.

For GNAT itself, the compiler enforces many layout rules, and it is not
even possible to compile a GNAT unit that does not obey the basic style
rules. This has been very useful in getting a high degree of uniformity
in the GNAT sources themselves.