about code formatting in pharo

>>what do you mean by now used?
>>Did they change that recently?
>
> According to http://planetmisc.squeak.org/
> a new package Compiler-cmm.131.mcz is now in Squeak inbox
> and may find its way into trunk ...
>
>
>>I don't like Beck's rule "3. Rectangular Block"
> vs.
>>So for me personally, Beck's rule 3 is the one that looks better.
>
> And there we have them: discussions on what looks better :)
>
> Bye
> T.
> --
> Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser -
> jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

> Well, Kent makes a well-reasoned argument for Rectangular Block,
> readability and productivity.  "I don't like it" is just a statement
> of someone's personal taste, a non-starter in terms of a useful
> discussion about formatting.
>
> My goal is to make the system more productive and, by my experience,
> that's what these formatting patterns accomplish.
>
>  - Chris
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Torsten Bergmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> what do you mean by now used?
>>> Did they change that recently?
>> According to http://planetmisc.squeak.org/
>> a new package Compiler-cmm.131.mcz is now in Squeak inbox
>> and may find its way into trunk ...
>>
>>
>>> I don't like Beck's rule "3. Rectangular Block"
>> vs.
>>> So for me personally, Beck's rule 3 is the one that looks better.
>> And there we have them: discussions on what looks better :)
>>
>> Bye
>> T.
>> --
>> Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser -
>> jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>

>
> IIRC, the arguments for productivity had to do with everyone just
> accepting one standard - not that one standard was "better" than
> another, just that there be *one* team standard (in the interest of
> productivity).
>
> I prefer the "hanging left bracket" because it allows the subsequent
> lines to have the same tabbing. That makes me faster, without requiring
> an automatic formatter.
>
> --
> Yanni
>
>
> Chris Muller wrote:
>> Well, Kent makes a well-reasoned argument for Rectangular Block,
>> readability and productivity.  "I don't like it" is just a statement
>> of someone's personal taste, a non-starter in terms of a useful
>> discussion about formatting.
>>
>> My goal is to make the system more productive and, by my experience,
>> that's what these formatting patterns accomplish.
>>
>> - Chris
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Torsten Bergmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> what do you mean by now used?
>>>> Did they change that recently?
>>> According to http://planetmisc.squeak.org/
>>> a new package Compiler-cmm.131.mcz is now in Squeak inbox
>>> and may find its way into trunk ...
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't like Beck's rule "3. Rectangular Block"
>>> vs.
>>>> So for me personally, Beck's rule 3 is the one that looks better.
>>> And there we have them: discussions on what looks better :)
>>>
>>> Bye
>>> T.
>>> --
>>> Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser -
>>> jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> Isn't readability a matter of taste, or were experiments done?
>
> IIRC, the arguments for productivity had to do with everyone just
> accepting one standard - not that one standard was "better" than
> another, just that there be *one* team standard (in the interest of
> productivity).
>
> I prefer the "hanging left bracket" because it allows the subsequent
> lines to have the same tabbing. That makes me faster, without requiring
> an automatic formatter.

>
> On Mar 3, 2010, at 16:53 , Yanni Chiu wrote:
>
>> Isn't readability a matter of taste, or were experiments done?
>
> Indeed. As long as we don't carry out usability studies, we don't know what is better and we have to resort to personal taste. When I said "I don't like x" I also meant "I find it is less readable". Yanni gives a good argument below.
>
> In any case, I don't want to start an endless discussion about formatting, but I think it is interesting to get the different opinions to be able to come up with a formatter that works for as many people as possible.
>
> What we probably all agree on is that a common convention (or automatic formatter) for code in PharoCore would improve readability in comparison to the current situation in which we have all sorts of formatting.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>>
>> IIRC, the arguments for productivity had to do with everyone just
>> accepting one standard - not that one standard was "better" than
>> another, just that there be *one* team standard (in the interest of
>> productivity).
>>
>> I prefer the "hanging left bracket" because it allows the subsequent
>> lines to have the same tabbing. That makes me faster, without requiring
>> an automatic formatter.
>>
>> --
>> Yanni
>>
>>
>> Chris Muller wrote:
>>> Well, Kent makes a well-reasoned argument for Rectangular Block,
>>> readability and productivity.  "I don't like it" is just a statement
>>> of someone's personal taste, a non-starter in terms of a useful
>>> discussion about formatting.
>>>
>>> My goal is to make the system more productive and, by my experience,
>>> that's what these formatting patterns accomplish.
>>>
>>> - Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Torsten Bergmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> what do you mean by now used?
>>>>> Did they change that recently?
>>>> According to http://planetmisc.squeak.org/
>>>> a new package Compiler-cmm.131.mcz is now in Squeak inbox
>>>> and may find its way into trunk ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't like Beck's rule "3. Rectangular Block"
>>>> vs.
>>>>> So for me personally, Beck's rule 3 is the one that looks better.
>>>> And there we have them: discussions on what looks better :)
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>> T.
>>>> --
>>>> Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser -
>>>> jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

>>>     ifTrue: [
>>>         line1 yo.
>>>         line2 eh ]
>>
>> Horrible, horrible, horrible ;)  Poor block.  The block is an  
>> object...
>
> Exactly what I was thinking; and how some of the new editor features
> since 3.9, that seem to reify "statements".  For example, clicking
> inside parens or square-brackets selects that statement(s).  I also
> really enjoyed the ability to "surround", thereby creating additional
> statement-levels.
>
> The whole interaction becomes much more liked working with tiled code
> rather than a text-editor.
>
>> I think the conclusion has to be (and I can confirm that the  
>> VisualWorks
>> team was equally divided) that no one formatting regime will make  
>> every one
>> happy and that all regimes will make a substantial minority  
>> unhappy.  So
>> perhaps we should step up to having code formatted automatically  
>> according
>> to tailorable preferences.
>
>
>
>> My only concern is comment formatting but the way to deal with that  
>> is to
>> use automatic formatting and deal with comment problems as they  
>> arise.  I
>> always used to be concerned about e.g. comments spanning multiple  
>> lines.
>>  But without day to day exposure I don't think one can know how  
>> much of an
>> issue it is.
>
> As someone who's logged 5-digits of hours in Squeak these last few
> years, I think the best thing is to just not.  Let 'em wrap!  Use
> shout to turn them light gray, so they don't really intrude on the
> code, but are there if you want focus on the extra prose.
>
> Unfortunately, the real problem with comments within BlockNodes is how
> they duplicate themselves within the parse-tree.. ouch!  I hope that
> is what you and Nicolas were talking about or that you'll have a fix
> for that..
>
>> One upside will be less effort reformatting when indent levels  
>> change.  Have
>> you noticed that Smalltalk tends to be more difficult to reformat  
>> than C
>> syntax languages, I guess because of keywords?  Not having to worry  
>> about
>> this could be great.
>
> Very cool, I hope there'll be enough additional consensus to adopt
> these Beckian formats for Squeaks pretty-print refinement.
>
>> Of course, what format gets written to a source file could still be  
>> a source
>> of conflict ;)  We may all want our syntax to be the   format of  
>> record :)
>
> Absolutely.  To not, would be the machine dictating to the user.
> Invoking automatic formatting is always the users choice.
> browseWithPrettyPrint allows readers to have it formatted dynamically
> if they wish..
>
> Cheers..
>
>> P.S.  and don't get me started on the trailing period (putrid  
>> excressence),
>> or the space between ^ and the return expression (vomitous mass).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> Hi,
>
> I do not understand the arguments that go in the direction of: because
> a block is an object, it should have no spaces inside and it should
> not have the code starting on a new line. This is a bit like saying
> that a method should not be indented and the code should start on the
> same line as the definition. Or in the same line, it is like saying
> that because all statements belong to a block, they should all be
> written on the same line.
>
> Visual thinking was mentioned as a defense for these arguments, but
> the first role of any visual notation is to make you identify
> structure fast.
>
> The comments of Yanni go in the correct, in my opinion, direction. So,
> when you have something like:
>
>     ifTrue:
>        [self clearCaches.
>        self current soleInstance yada yada blah blah
>        self recomputeAngle]
>
> you break visual alignment and it is more difficult to see that the
> first "self..." is in the same context as the second "self...". Of
> course, practice can solve everything and in time you can get used to
> this, but that does not make it natural.
>
> Another visual problem with "[" and "]" is that they are but one
> character, and if you place them together with something else, like
> "[self", they lose their visual identity (btw, we read words in chunks
> not by characters) and get harder to spot. It's true that some fonts
> and extra coloring could solve this problem, but whitespace is always
> the best and least invasive design weapon.
>
> Another problem with having no space between the [ and the rest is
> that you basically render useless the nice feature of Smalltalk
> environments to double click and select everything inside. The reason
> is that I have to go to great pain to get the mouse exactly in the
> right place.
>
>
> An indentation like below solves the above visual problems.
>
> boolean ifTrue: [
>        self clearCaches.
>        self current soleInstance yada yada blah blah
>        self recomputeAngle ]
>
> The lines are clearly belonging together, [ is clearly observed and
> clicking anywhere on the first line after [ will select the whole block.
>
> Yet another thing it solves is the consistency between block and
> method. They both define behavior, and thus  it would be great if they
> would be treated similarly. This is better seen in the context of a
> block with parameter:
>

> aCollection do: [ :each |
>                self something.
>                self somethingElse. ]
>
> Just like a method has the top line with the signature and the
> parameters, a block should be the same. In this case, each is a
> parameter and it is clearly distinct from everything else. When there
> is no parameter, this is information made very clear, too (because of
> the absence of anything following [ ).
>
>
> An argument against this convention was that it looks like C and that
> blocks are not dumb {. While I understand the built-in adversity, we
> are talking about a visual notation that makes sense for Smalltalk and
> not one that make it different from everything else around us.
>
> Another option would be to have:
> boolean ifTrue:
>        [       self clearCaches.
>                self current soleInstance yada yada blah blah
>                self recomputeAngle ]
>
> with everything inside the block being aligned. However, this has the
> problem of wasting space. One space can also be used, but only when
> the font is monospaced, so it would not work in general. Furthermore,
> it would be inconsistent or even more space wasting when it comes to
> blocks with parameters.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
> On 4 Mar 2010, at 03:38, Chris Muller wrote:
>
>>>>     ifTrue: [
>>>>         line1 yo.
>>>>         line2 eh ]
>>>
>>> Horrible, horrible, horrible ;)  Poor block.  The block is an
>>> object...
>>
>> Exactly what I was thinking; and how some of the new editor features
>> since 3.9, that seem to reify "statements".  For example, clicking
>> inside parens or square-brackets selects that statement(s).  I also
>> really enjoyed the ability to "surround", thereby creating additional
>> statement-levels.
>>
>> The whole interaction becomes much more liked working with tiled code
>> rather than a text-editor.
>>
>>> I think the conclusion has to be (and I can confirm that the
>>> VisualWorks
>>> team was equally divided) that no one formatting regime will make
>>> every one
>>> happy and that all regimes will make a substantial minority
>>> unhappy.  So
>>> perhaps we should step up to having code formatted automatically
>>> according
>>> to tailorable preferences.
>>
>>
>>
>>> My only concern is comment formatting but the way to deal with that
>>> is to
>>> use automatic formatting and deal with comment problems as they
>>> arise.  I
>>> always used to be concerned about e.g. comments spanning multiple
>>> lines.
>>>  But without day to day exposure I don't think one can know how
>>> much of an
>>> issue it is.
>>
>> As someone who's logged 5-digits of hours in Squeak these last few
>> years, I think the best thing is to just not.  Let 'em wrap!  Use
>> shout to turn them light gray, so they don't really intrude on the
>> code, but are there if you want focus on the extra prose.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the real problem with comments within BlockNodes is how
>> they duplicate themselves within the parse-tree.. ouch!  I hope that
>> is what you and Nicolas were talking about or that you'll have a fix
>> for that..
>>
>>> One upside will be less effort reformatting when indent levels
>>> change.  Have
>>> you noticed that Smalltalk tends to be more difficult to reformat
>>> than C
>>> syntax languages, I guess because of keywords?  Not having to worry
>>> about
>>> this could be great.
>>
>> Very cool, I hope there'll be enough additional consensus to adopt
>> these Beckian formats for Squeaks pretty-print refinement.
>>
>>> Of course, what format gets written to a source file could still be
>>> a source
>>> of conflict ;)  We may all want our syntax to be the   format of
>>> record :)
>>
>> Absolutely.  To not, would be the machine dictating to the user.
>> Invoking automatic formatting is always the users choice.
>> browseWithPrettyPrint allows readers to have it formatted dynamically
>> if they wish..
>>
>> Cheers..
>>
>>> P.S.  and don't get me started on the trailing period (putrid
>>> excressence),
>>> or the space between ^ and the return expression (vomitous mass).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Live like you mean it."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

> The lines are clearly belonging together, [ is clearly observed and
> clicking anywhere on the first line after [ will select the whole block.
>
> Yet another thing it solves is the consistency between block and
> method. They both define behavior, and thus  it would be great if they
> would be treated similarly. This is better seen in the context of a
> block with parameter:
>
> aCollection do: [ :each |
>                self something.
>                self somethingElse. ]
>
> Just like a method has the top line with the signature and the
> parameters, a block should be the same. In this case, each is a
> parameter and it is clearly distinct from everything else. When there
> is no parameter, this is information made very clear, too (because of
> the absence of anything following [ ).
>
>
> An argument against this convention was that it looks like C and that
> blocks are not dumb {. While I understand the built-in adversity, we
> are talking about a visual notation that makes sense for Smalltalk and
> not one that make it different from everything else around us.
>
> Another option would be to have:
> boolean ifTrue:
>        [       self clearCaches.
>                self current soleInstance yada yada blah blah
>                self recomputeAngle ]
>
> with everything inside the block being aligned. However, this has the
> problem of wasting space. One space can also be used, but only when
> the font is monospaced, so it would not work in general. Furthermore,
> it would be inconsistent or even more space wasting when it comes to
> blocks with parameters.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
> On 4 Mar 2010, at 03:38, Chris Muller wrote:
>
>>>>     ifTrue: [
>>>>         line1 yo.
>>>>         line2 eh ]
>>>
>>> Horrible, horrible, horrible ;)  Poor block.  The block is an
>>> object...
>>
>> Exactly what I was thinking; and how some of the new editor features
>> since 3.9, that seem to reify "statements".  For example, clicking
>> inside parens or square-brackets selects that statement(s).  I also
>> really enjoyed the ability to "surround", thereby creating additional
>> statement-levels.
>>
>> The whole interaction becomes much more liked working with tiled code
>> rather than a text-editor.
>>
>>> I think the conclusion has to be (and I can confirm that the
>>> VisualWorks
>>> team was equally divided) that no one formatting regime will make
>>> every one
>>> happy and that all regimes will make a substantial minority
>>> unhappy.  So
>>> perhaps we should step up to having code formatted automatically
>>> according
>>> to tailorable preferences.
>>
>>
>>
>>> My only concern is comment formatting but the way to deal with that
>>> is to
>>> use automatic formatting and deal with comment problems as they
>>> arise.  I
>>> always used to be concerned about e.g. comments spanning multiple
>>> lines.
>>>  But without day to day exposure I don't think one can know how
>>> much of an
>>> issue it is.
>>
>> As someone who's logged 5-digits of hours in Squeak these last few
>> years, I think the best thing is to just not.  Let 'em wrap!  Use
>> shout to turn them light gray, so they don't really intrude on the
>> code, but are there if you want focus on the extra prose.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the real problem with comments within BlockNodes is how
>> they duplicate themselves within the parse-tree.. ouch!  I hope that
>> is what you and Nicolas were talking about or that you'll have a fix
>> for that..
>>
>>> One upside will be less effort reformatting when indent levels
>>> change.  Have
>>> you noticed that Smalltalk tends to be more difficult to reformat
>>> than C
>>> syntax languages, I guess because of keywords?  Not having to worry
>>> about
>>> this could be great.
>>
>> Very cool, I hope there'll be enough additional consensus to adopt
>> these Beckian formats for Squeaks pretty-print refinement.
>>
>>> Of course, what format gets written to a source file could still be
>>> a source
>>> of conflict ;)  We may all want our syntax to be the   format of
>>> record :)
>>
>> Absolutely.  To not, would be the machine dictating to the user.
>> Invoking automatic formatting is always the users choice.
>> browseWithPrettyPrint allows readers to have it formatted dynamically
>> if they wish..
>>
>> Cheers..
>>
>>> P.S.  and don't get me started on the trailing period (putrid
>>> excressence),
>>> or the space between ^ and the return expression (vomitous mass).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pharo-project mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Live like you mean it."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>

> It is obvious that a consensus will not be reached on the "one and only true format."
>
> If my browser displays code formatted the way I want to see it and the difference tools are format neutral (i.e., the source and target code is formatted using the same rules) there is no need to agree on a standard style. For all intents and purposes each developer's favored format _is the standard_.
>
> We only need to agree to disagree and then figure out how to make it possible to customize the formatter and resolve any other technical details (performance and others) that are deemed important. These are technical problems with technical solutions.
>
> Dale
> ----- "Chris Muller" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> | > Another visual problem with "[" and "]" is that they are but one
> | > character, and if you place them together with something else, like
> | > "[self", they lose their visual identity (btw, we read words in
> | chunks
> | > not by characters) and get harder to spot. It's true that some fonts
> | > and extra coloring could solve this problem, but whitespace is
> | always
> | > the best and least invasive design weapon.
> |
> | Tudor, for what its worth, the white-space surrounding the blocks is
> | not really at issue or discussion here.  It's about formatting blocked
> | code into rectangular shapes.
> |
> | In fact, I agree with you about your point about the whitespace.  IOW,
> | I prefer:
> |
> | someVar = someValue
> | ifTrue: [ self doOneThing ]
> | ifFalse:
> | [ self
> | doOtherThing ;
> | doYetAnotherThing.
> | anotherObject doSomething ]
> |
> | Not:
> |
> | someVar = someValue
> | ifTrue: [self doOneThing]
> | ifFalse:
> | [self
> | doOtherThing ;
> | doYetAnotherThing.
> | anotherObject doSomething]
> |
> | Perhaps if you looked at a longer method example, with nested blocks,
> | you might be able to "see", visually, the blocks more obviously.
> | Perhaps not, I don't know.
> |
> | Regards,
> |   Chris
> |
> | > The lines are clearly belonging together, [ is clearly observed and
> | > clicking anywhere on the first line after [ will select the whole
> | block.
> | >
> | > Yet another thing it solves is the consistency between block and
> | > method. They both define behavior, and thus  it would be great if
> | they
> | > would be treated similarly. This is better seen in the context of a
> | > block with parameter:
> | >
> | > aCollection do: [ :each |
> | >                self something.
> | >                self somethingElse. ]
> | >
> | > Just like a method has the top line with the signature and the
> | > parameters, a block should be the same. In this case, each is a
> | > parameter and it is clearly distinct from everything else. When
> | there
> | > is no parameter, this is information made very clear, too (because
> | of
> | > the absence of anything following [ ).
> | >
> | >
> | > An argument against this convention was that it looks like C and
> | that
> | > blocks are not dumb {. While I understand the built-in adversity, we
> | > are talking about a visual notation that makes sense for Smalltalk
> | and
> | > not one that make it different from everything else around us.
> | >
> | > Another option would be to have:
> | > boolean ifTrue:
> | >        [       self clearCaches.
> | >                self current soleInstance yada yada blah blah
> | >                self recomputeAngle ]
> | >
> | > with everything inside the block being aligned. However, this has
> | the
> | > problem of wasting space. One space can also be used, but only when
> | > the font is monospaced, so it would not work in general.
> | Furthermore,
> | > it would be inconsistent or even more space wasting when it comes to
> | > blocks with parameters.
> | >
> | > Cheers,
> | > Doru
> | >
> | >
> | > On 4 Mar 2010, at 03:38, Chris Muller wrote:
> | >
> | >>>>     ifTrue: [
> | >>>>         line1 yo.
> | >>>>         line2 eh ]
> | >>>
> | >>> Horrible, horrible, horrible ;)  Poor block.  The block is an
> | >>> object...
> | >>
> | >> Exactly what I was thinking; and how some of the new editor
> | features
> | >> since 3.9, that seem to reify "statements".  For example, clicking
> | >> inside parens or square-brackets selects that statement(s).  I also
> | >> really enjoyed the ability to "surround", thereby creating
> | additional
> | >> statement-levels.
> | >>
> | >> The whole interaction becomes much more liked working with tiled
> | code
> | >> rather than a text-editor.
> | >>
> | >>> I think the conclusion has to be (and I can confirm that the
> | >>> VisualWorks
> | >>> team was equally divided) that no one formatting regime will make
> | >>> every one
> | >>> happy and that all regimes will make a substantial minority
> | >>> unhappy.  So
> | >>> perhaps we should step up to having code formatted automatically
> | >>> according
> | >>> to tailorable preferences.
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>> My only concern is comment formatting but the way to deal with
> | that
> | >>> is to
> | >>> use automatic formatting and deal with comment problems as they
> | >>> arise.  I
> | >>> always used to be concerned about e.g. comments spanning multiple
> | >>> lines.
> | >>>  But without day to day exposure I don't think one can know how
> | >>> much of an
> | >>> issue it is.
> | >>
> | >> As someone who's logged 5-digits of hours in Squeak these last few
> | >> years, I think the best thing is to just not.  Let 'em wrap!  Use
> | >> shout to turn them light gray, so they don't really intrude on the
> | >> code, but are there if you want focus on the extra prose.
> | >>
> | >> Unfortunately, the real problem with comments within BlockNodes is
> | how
> | >> they duplicate themselves within the parse-tree.. ouch!  I hope
> | that
> | >> is what you and Nicolas were talking about or that you'll have a
> | fix
> | >> for that..
> | >>
> | >>> One upside will be less effort reformatting when indent levels
> | >>> change.  Have
> | >>> you noticed that Smalltalk tends to be more difficult to reformat
> | >>> than C
> | >>> syntax languages, I guess because of keywords?  Not having to
> | worry
> | >>> about
> | >>> this could be great.
> | >>
> | >> Very cool, I hope there'll be enough additional consensus to adopt
> | >> these Beckian formats for Squeaks pretty-print refinement.
> | >>
> | >>> Of course, what format gets written to a source file could still
> | be
> | >>> a source
> | >>> of conflict ;)  We may all want our syntax to be the   format of
> | >>> record :)
> | >>
> | >> Absolutely.  To not, would be the machine dictating to the user.
> | >> Invoking automatic formatting is always the users choice.
> | >> browseWithPrettyPrint allows readers to have it formatted
> | dynamically
> | >> if they wish..
> | >>
> | >> Cheers..
> | >>
> | >>> P.S.  and don't get me started on the trailing period (putrid
> | >>> excressence),
> | >>> or the space between ^ and the return expression (vomitous mass).
> | >>
> | >> _______________________________________________
> | >> Pharo-project mailing list
> | >> [hidden email]
> | >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
> | >
> | > --
> | > www.tudorgirba.com
> | >
> | > "Live like you mean it."
> | >
> | >
> | > _______________________________________________
> | > Pharo-project mailing list
> | > [hidden email]
> | > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
> | >
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | Pharo-project mailing list
> | [hidden email]
> | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> It is obvious that a consensus will not be reached on the "one and only true format."
>
> If my browser displays code formatted the way I want to see it and the difference tools are format neutral (i.e., the source and target code is formatted using the same rules) there is no need to agree on a standard style. For all intents and purposes each developer's favored format _is the standard_.
>
> We only need to agree to disagree and then figure out how to make it possible to customize the formatter and resolve any other technical details (performance and others) that are deemed important. These are technical problems with technical solutions.
>
> Dale
> ----- "Chris Muller" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> | > Another visual problem with "[" and "]" is that they are but one
> | > character, and if you place them together with something else, like
> | > "[self", they lose their visual identity (btw, we read words in
> | chunks
> | > not by characters) and get harder to spot. It's true that some fonts
> | > and extra coloring could solve this problem, but whitespace is
> | always
> | > the best and least invasive design weapon.
> |
> | Tudor, for what its worth, the white-space surrounding the blocks is
> | not really at issue or discussion here.  It's about formatting blocked
> | code into rectangular shapes.
> |
> | In fact, I agree with you about your point about the whitespace.  IOW,
> | I prefer:
> |
> | someVar = someValue
> | ifTrue: [ self doOneThing ]
> | ifFalse:
> | [ self
> | doOtherThing ;
> | doYetAnotherThing.
> | anotherObject doSomething ]
> |
> | Not:
> |
> | someVar = someValue
> | ifTrue: [self doOneThing]
> | ifFalse:
> | [self
> | doOtherThing ;
> | doYetAnotherThing.
> | anotherObject doSomething]
> |
> | Perhaps if you looked at a longer method example, with nested blocks,
> | you might be able to "see", visually, the blocks more obviously.
> | Perhaps not, I don't know.
> |
> | Regards,
> |   Chris
> |
> | > The lines are clearly belonging together, [ is clearly observed and
> | > clicking anywhere on the first line after [ will select the whole
> | block.
> | >
> | > Yet another thing it solves is the consistency between block and
> | > method. They both define behavior, and thus  it would be great if
> | they
> | > would be treated similarly. This is better seen in the context of a
> | > block with parameter:
> | >
> | > aCollection do: [ :each |
> | >                self something.
> | >                self somethingElse. ]
> | >
> | > Just like a method has the top line with the signature and the
> | > parameters, a block should be the same. In this case, each is a
> | > parameter and it is clearly distinct from everything else. When
> | there
> | > is no parameter, this is information made very clear, too (because
> | of
> | > the absence of anything following [ ).
> | >
> | >
> | > An argument against this convention was that it looks like C and
> | that
> | > blocks are not dumb {. While I understand the built-in adversity, we
> | > are talking about a visual notation that makes sense for Smalltalk
> | and
> | > not one that make it different from everything else around us.
> | >
> | > Another option would be to have:
> | > boolean ifTrue:
> | >        [       self clearCaches.
> | >                self current soleInstance yada yada blah blah
> | >                self recomputeAngle ]
> | >
> | > with everything inside the block being aligned. However, this has
> | the
> | > problem of wasting space. One space can also be used, but only when
> | > the font is monospaced, so it would not work in general.
> | Furthermore,
> | > it would be inconsistent or even more space wasting when it comes to
> | > blocks with parameters.
> | >
> | > Cheers,
> | > Doru
> | >
> | >
> | > On 4 Mar 2010, at 03:38, Chris Muller wrote:
> | >
> | >>>>     ifTrue: [
> | >>>>         line1 yo.
> | >>>>         line2 eh ]
> | >>>
> | >>> Horrible, horrible, horrible ;)  Poor block.  The block is an
> | >>> object...
> | >>
> | >> Exactly what I was thinking; and how some of the new editor
> | features
> | >> since 3.9, that seem to reify "statements".  For example, clicking
> | >> inside parens or square-brackets selects that statement(s).  I also
> | >> really enjoyed the ability to "surround", thereby creating
> | additional
> | >> statement-levels.
> | >>
> | >> The whole interaction becomes much more liked working with tiled
> | code
> | >> rather than a text-editor.
> | >>
> | >>> I think the conclusion has to be (and I can confirm that the
> | >>> VisualWorks
> | >>> team was equally divided) that no one formatting regime will make
> | >>> every one
> | >>> happy and that all regimes will make a substantial minority
> | >>> unhappy.  So
> | >>> perhaps we should step up to having code formatted automatically
> | >>> according
> | >>> to tailorable preferences.
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>> My only concern is comment formatting but the way to deal with
> | that
> | >>> is to
> | >>> use automatic formatting and deal with comment problems as they
> | >>> arise.  I
> | >>> always used to be concerned about e.g. comments spanning multiple
> | >>> lines.
> | >>>  But without day to day exposure I don't think one can know how
> | >>> much of an
> | >>> issue it is.
> | >>
> | >> As someone who's logged 5-digits of hours in Squeak these last few
> | >> years, I think the best thing is to just not.  Let 'em wrap!  Use
> | >> shout to turn them light gray, so they don't really intrude on the
> | >> code, but are there if you want focus on the extra prose.
> | >>
> | >> Unfortunately, the real problem with comments within BlockNodes is
> | how
> | >> they duplicate themselves within the parse-tree.. ouch!  I hope
> | that
> | >> is what you and Nicolas were talking about or that you'll have a
> | fix
> | >> for that..
> | >>
> | >>> One upside will be less effort reformatting when indent levels
> | >>> change.  Have
> | >>> you noticed that Smalltalk tends to be more difficult to reformat
> | >>> than C
> | >>> syntax languages, I guess because of keywords?  Not having to
> | worry
> | >>> about
> | >>> this could be great.
> | >>
> | >> Very cool, I hope there'll be enough additional consensus to adopt
> | >> these Beckian formats for Squeaks pretty-print refinement.
> | >>
> | >>> Of course, what format gets written to a source file could still
> | be
> | >>> a source
> | >>> of conflict ;)  We may all want our syntax to be the   format of
> | >>> record :)
> | >>
> | >> Absolutely.  To not, would be the machine dictating to the user.
> | >> Invoking automatic formatting is always the users choice.
> | >> browseWithPrettyPrint allows readers to have it formatted
> | dynamically
> | >> if they wish..
> | >>
> | >> Cheers..
> | >>
> | >>> P.S.  and don't get me started on the trailing period (putrid
> | >>> excressence),
> | >>> or the space between ^ and the return expression (vomitous mass).
> | >>
> | >> _______________________________________________
> | >> Pharo-project mailing list
> | >> [hidden email]
> | >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
> | >
> | > --
> | > www.tudorgirba.com
> | >
> | > "Live like you mean it."
> | >
> | >
> | > _______________________________________________
> | > Pharo-project mailing list
> | > [hidden email]
> | > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
> | >
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | Pharo-project mailing list
> | [hidden email]
> | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

> It is obvious that a consensus will not be reached on the "one and only true format."
>
> If my browser displays code formatted the way I want to see it and the difference tools are format neutral (i.e., the source and target code is formatted using the same rules) there is no need to agree on a standard style. For all intents and purposes each developer's favored format _is the standard_.
>
> We only need to agree to disagree and then figure out how to make it possible to customize the formatter and resolve any other technical details (performance and others) that are deemed important. These are technical problems with technical solutions.
>
> Dale
> ----- "Chris Muller" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> | > Another visual problem with "[" and "]" is that they are but one
> | > character, and if you place them together with something else,
> | > like "[self", they lose their visual identity (btw, we read words
> | > in
> | chunks
> | > not by characters) and get harder to spot. It's true that some
> | > fonts and extra coloring could solve this problem, but whitespace
> | > is
> | always
> | > the best and least invasive design weapon.
> |
> | Tudor, for what its worth, the white-space surrounding the blocks is
> | not really at issue or discussion here.  It's about formatting
> | blocked code into rectangular shapes.
> |
> | In fact, I agree with you about your point about the whitespace.  
> | IOW, I prefer:
> |
> | someVar = someValue
> | ifTrue: [ self doOneThing ]
> | ifFalse:
> | [ self
> | doOtherThing ;
> | doYetAnotherThing.
> | anotherObject doSomething ]
> |
> | Not:
> |
> | someVar = someValue
> | ifTrue: [self doOneThing]
> | ifFalse:
> | [self
> | doOtherThing ;
> | doYetAnotherThing.
> | anotherObject doSomething]
> |
> | Perhaps if you looked at a longer method example, with nested
> | blocks, you might be able to "see", visually, the blocks more obviously.
> | Perhaps not, I don't know.
> |
> | Regards,
> |   Chris
> |
> | > The lines are clearly belonging together, [ is clearly observed
> | > and clicking anywhere on the first line after [ will select the
> | > whole
> | block.
> | >
> | > Yet another thing it solves is the consistency between block and
> | > method. They both define behavior, and thus  it would be great if
> | they
> | > would be treated similarly. This is better seen in the context of
> | > a block with parameter:
> | >
> | > aCollection do: [ :each |
> | >                self something.
> | >                self somethingElse. ]
> | >
> | > Just like a method has the top line with the signature and the
> | > parameters, a block should be the same. In this case, each is a
> | > parameter and it is clearly distinct from everything else. When
> | there
> | > is no parameter, this is information made very clear, too (because
> | of
> | > the absence of anything following [ ).
> | >
> | >
> | > An argument against this convention was that it looks like C and
> | that
> | > blocks are not dumb {. While I understand the built-in adversity,
> | > we are talking about a visual notation that makes sense for
> | > Smalltalk
> | and
> | > not one that make it different from everything else around us.
> | >
> | > Another option would be to have:
> | > boolean ifTrue:
> | >        [       self clearCaches.
> | >                self current soleInstance yada yada blah blah
> | >                self recomputeAngle ]
> | >
> | > with everything inside the block being aligned. However, this has
> | the
> | > problem of wasting space. One space can also be used, but only
> | > when the font is monospaced, so it would not work in general.
> | Furthermore,
> | > it would be inconsistent or even more space wasting when it comes
> | > to blocks with parameters.
> | >
> | > Cheers,
> | > Doru
> | >
> | >
> | > On 4 Mar 2010, at 03:38, Chris Muller wrote:
> | >
> | >>>>     ifTrue: [
> | >>>>         line1 yo.
> | >>>>         line2 eh ]
> | >>>
> | >>> Horrible, horrible, horrible ;)  Poor block.  The block is an
> | >>> object...
> | >>
> | >> Exactly what I was thinking; and how some of the new editor
> | features
> | >> since 3.9, that seem to reify "statements".  For example,
> | >> clicking inside parens or square-brackets selects that
> | >> statement(s).  I also really enjoyed the ability to "surround",
> | >> thereby creating
> | additional
> | >> statement-levels.
> | >>
> | >> The whole interaction becomes much more liked working with tiled
> | code
> | >> rather than a text-editor.
> | >>
> | >>> I think the conclusion has to be (and I can confirm that the
> | >>> VisualWorks team was equally divided) that no one formatting
> | >>> regime will make every one happy and that all regimes will make
> | >>> a substantial minority unhappy.  So perhaps we should step up to
> | >>> having code formatted automatically according to tailorable
> | >>> preferences.
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>
> | >>> My only concern is comment formatting but the way to deal with
> | that
> | >>> is to
> | >>> use automatic formatting and deal with comment problems as they
> | >>> arise.  I always used to be concerned about e.g. comments
> | >>> spanning multiple lines.
> | >>>  But without day to day exposure I don't think one can know how
> | >>> much of an issue it is.
> | >>
> | >> As someone who's logged 5-digits of hours in Squeak these last
> | >> few years, I think the best thing is to just not.  Let 'em wrap!  
> | >> Use shout to turn them light gray, so they don't really intrude
> | >> on the code, but are there if you want focus on the extra prose.
> | >>
> | >> Unfortunately, the real problem with comments within BlockNodes
> | >> is
> | how
> | >> they duplicate themselves within the parse-tree.. ouch!  I hope
> | that
> | >> is what you and Nicolas were talking about or that you'll have a
> | fix
> | >> for that..
> | >>
> | >>> One upside will be less effort reformatting when indent levels
> | >>> change.  Have you noticed that Smalltalk tends to be more
> | >>> difficult to reformat than C syntax languages, I guess because
> | >>> of keywords?  Not having to
> | worry
> | >>> about
> | >>> this could be great.
> | >>
> | >> Very cool, I hope there'll be enough additional consensus to
> | >> adopt these Beckian formats for Squeaks pretty-print refinement.
> | >>
> | >>> Of course, what format gets written to a source file could still
> | be
> | >>> a source
> | >>> of conflict ;)  We may all want our syntax to be the   format of
> | >>> record :)
> | >>
> | >> Absolutely.  To not, would be the machine dictating to the user.
> | >> Invoking automatic formatting is always the users choice.
> | >> browseWithPrettyPrint allows readers to have it formatted
> | dynamically
> | >> if they wish..
> | >>
> | >> Cheers..
> | >>
> | >>> P.S.  and don't get me started on the trailing period (putrid
> | >>> excressence), or the space between ^ and the return expression
> | >>> (vomitous mass).
> | >>
> | >> _______________________________________________
> | >> Pharo-project mailing list
> | >> [hidden email]
> | >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-proje
> | >> ct
> | >
> | > --
> | > www.tudorgirba.com
> | >
> | > "Live like you mean it."
> | >
> | >
> | > _______________________________________________
> | > Pharo-project mailing list
> | > [hidden email]
> | > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-projec
> | > t
> | >
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | Pharo-project mailing list
> | [hidden email]
> | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project