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: 103376,21bbcb8deeeab673
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada95 Pretty-Printers/Coding styles
Date: 1997/06/21
Message-ID: <dewar.866910376@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 251611702
References: <33A54D07.4E14@aisf.com> <dewar.866484793@merv>
 <EBxzzw.9zz@news.boeing.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bart said

<<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;
>>

Bart, the "only" here is pure invention on your part. What I have said
is that a common coding style is important. For you to conclude that
it is the only important form in having a highly cohesive group is

(a) most peculiar

(b) completely inconsistent with anything I have said

I think that commonality of style is necessary to get a really cooperative
environment that effectively eliminates the notion of code ownership (I
certainly have never seen this achieved in an environment without a
strong sense of common style).

However, to suggest that it is sufficient seems, as I say, most peculiar.

But in answer to your first question, yes, the quotation definitely does
reflect ACT philosophy. The rest of the sentence after the semicolon comes
from your own experience and feelings, not from ACT!