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,d275ffeffdf83655
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java
Date: 1999/01/22
Message-ID: <m3n23c3v8b.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 435460619
Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net
References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net>
 <tz5n2.4608$TO5.129375@ptah.visi.com> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se>
 <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <369F1D39.64A65BC1@sea.ericsson.se>
 <369f81a9.31040093@news.demon.co.uk> <77ommt$9bo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <77vhjf$nn9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <77vld9$qvg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <YkGBP4MNXb2t-pn2-bjzMwxf6POdh@localhost> <782rp0$kn6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6Oap2.16170$MW1.4028@news2.giganews.com> <783nnb$s9c@drn.newsguy.com>
 <784qvi$a0a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <78549k$iqv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <785fo3$thj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <m33e555b3d.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <36A6F997.CA210C39@easystreet.com> <m3ww2g4kvs.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <36A775B3.666042D8@easystreet.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:17:13 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-01-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> writes:

> Matthew Heaney wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > procedure Push
> >  (Item : in Item_Type;
> >   On : in out Stack_Type);
> > 
> > into this:
> > 
> > procedure Push
> >   (Item : in     Item_Type;
> >    On   : in out Stack_Type);
> > 
> > What's the problem?
> 
> If that's just a way to make sure that newly-written code complies 
> with a standard before it gets stored, there is no problem.

Yes, that is that case.  You type in the declaration "loosely," as in
the former declaration above, type C-c C-f when you're done typing that
declaration, and then you get the latter declaration.  

When you're all done with your edits, and all your code is compliant
with coding standards, then you check it back in.

> Perhaps I misunderstood.

Yes.

> I thought that you were saying that the power of C-c C-f and similar
> automated features was sufficient to allow wide variation in working
> copies of code based on individual programmer preferences without any
> significant disadvantages.

No.

> I don't think that's true; significant disadvantages are: 1) too much
> time wasted de-standardizing code after check-out, 2) too much time
> wasted re-standardizing code before check-in, 3) chance of error being
> introduced in 1) and 2), and 4) likelihood that after code has gone
> through automated standardization, it will not be exactly identical to
> previous standardized version, leading to many false deltas found by
> diff.

I agree with Robert Dewar here.  Everyone should follow a standard.  Get
rid of pretty printers and other automatic code formatters.  Tools like
that are useless, and only promote programmer laziness and divisiveness.

Emacs is the only tool you need to edit program text.