From: Thomas Kirchner <lists@...>
Date: 2005-05-28T00:18:54+09:00
Subject: Re: [FYKA] Plz comment

--VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* On May 27 23:45, Dr Balwinder S Dheeman (ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) wrote:
> Whichever of above appeals you better? Or do any of you have better=20
> ideas on these? What would you expact more from such a utility? =20
> Feedback of yours shall highly be appreciated.

Personally, I prefer either matz's way or your third way (where the=20
things inside the block are at the same indentation level).  To me,=20
that's important in clarifying the block.  It lets you know that all=20
elements at this indentation level are of the same structure, whether=20
it's a block, case, if, etc.  If you have the "else" further left than=20
the "rescue", or similar, my eyes would naturally ignore the rescue as=20
part of that semantic block.

Also, I'll be interested in seeing how your project comes along.  Ruby is=
=20
naturally beautiful, but I have a tendency to write compact (ugly) code. =
=20
I think it'd be hard for a utility to beautify code that is ugly not=20
because of its spacing but because of the=20
(compact/ugly/archaic/compressed) style used.

Just as a simple example - would it turn C-style (if x ? yes : no) into=20
longer if/else blocks?  Things like this are "ugly" because of the=20
concept used, not its placement in the text.  Of course, it's possible to=
=20
just ignore things like this and beautify the things you're sure about.

Tom

--VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFClzpc/rVdTqQq7OwRAnu7AJ9gC0Knp48TGzTTaGvJCY6Uhq3d5gCeOkwH
ygi0yGEV2JK6vKYaDrBgMgk=
=X8gw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--VbJkn9YxBvnuCH5J--