[petsc-dev] I hate this one

[Matthew Knepley]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Again, the data does not support you. An incredible number of instances,
>> and almost all files were changed. Thus,
>> this was far from "unconventional".
>>
>
> With a version from last week (before the formatting changes):
>
> $ git grep '^ \+for (' src | wc -l
> 11387
> $ git grep '^ \+for(' src | wc -l
> 1210
> $ git grep '^ \+while (' src | wc -l
> 926
> $ git grep '^ \+while(' src | wc -l
> 156
> $ git grep '^ \+if (' src | wc -l
> 22760
> $ git grep '^ \+if(' src | wc -l
> 129
>
> Is 10% small enough to be called "unconventional"?
>

No.


>
>> _You_ are not even entertaining the possibility that small variability in
>> source can be tolerated. That is incredibly close minded.
>>
>
> You've said that the only reason you care about this is because it affects
> readability, which is exactly the reason to have consistent formatting
> guidelines in the first place.
>

Absolute consistency is not axiomatic for readability. It is entirely
possible that some portions of the code
are more readable with a different standard. Furthermore, readability is
self-evidently dependent on the reader.
Enforcing _everything_ to be a single standard ignores this on its face. I
assume you are also a fan of Ricardo
and don't have much time for Kahneman.

   Matt

-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their
experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their
experiments lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130121/1837bad1/attachment.html>