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: f43e6,d71a6822cd2fec5
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ea968aeb8c7f10d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Do I Really Need A Supervisor?
Date: 1997/03/19
Message-ID: <dewar.858830091@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 226887028
References: <5g7u24$1jeg@uni.library.ucla.edu> <dewar.858635029@merv>
 <332EC40A.6F59@ss5010.ca.boeing.com> <dewar.858712840@merv>
 <5gpqbp$spl@top.mitre.org>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Michael Breenner says

<<Here is one possible solution to the problem of requiring consistent surface
syntax: Dont. Instead, set a pretty-printer to different parameters (font,
indenting, capitalization, commenting, color, etc.) each time the code is
looked at. This finds problems that may be missed in a consistent syntax
environment. Problems, such as one extra alias of the variable causing
the error, or programs that have too high an opinion of their looks :)>>


Given the smiley at the end  it is hard to know if this is a serious suggestion.
If so, it does not work for a number of reasons, and we have a long thread on
this topic only a few months ago, so it is too early to repeat it!