religious wars

religious wars

[Dave Korn]

  A comment that I'm going to remove before I check-in:


+        /* You know,it would look absolutely nonsensical( or perhaps
+        that's just my opinion )if we were to write comments( or
+        anything else human readable )in this style( wouldn't it? ),because
+        brackets go with the content that they bracket,not with the things
+        that they separate their content from,and a punctuation mark does
+        not come with an implicit space.Does it?So why should code be 
+        written in this ungainly style?*/

... because although I really dislike the ...

    if( arg )
        x = FuncCall( arg );

... style and much prefer the GNU ...

    if (arg)
        x = FuncCall (arg);

... style (and anyway, just exactly which direction do brackets bind in in C,
anyway, eh?), I just really can't be bothered with the long and inane
discussion that would no doubt ensue.

  Gah.

  Guess I'll just have to put up with my eyeballs being offended.




  It does lead me to wonder, though, if there isn't a market for a cross
between CVS and GNU indent that transforms the code on check-out and check-in,
so that anyone who checks out a sandbox gets the files formatted in their own
favourite style, and can write code however they most prefer, and everyone
else sees it in /their/ own favourite style, and nobody even has to know or
care what the actual underlying format looks like at all.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: religious wars

[Jason Alonso]

On 6/11/07, Dave Korn wrote:
<--snip-->
>   It does lead me to wonder, though, if there isn't a market for a cross
> between CVS and GNU indent that transforms the code on check-out and check-in,
> so that anyone who checks out a sandbox gets the files formatted in their own
> favourite style, and can write code however they most prefer, and everyone
> else sees it in /their/ own favourite style, and nobody even has to know or
> care what the actual underlying format looks like at all.

I once collaborated on a small project where I used vim and my cohorts
used emacs (another religious war), and we had indentation nightmares,
especially with CVS.  My "solution" was a 5am daily cron job that
automagically checked out a copy of the latest source tree,
auto-indented it, and committed it.

The result?

"The auto-indenter is about to start...  Commit NOW!"

and...

"My code was hit by the auto-dementor."

Cheers,
Jason

Re: religious wars

[Matthew Woehlke]

Dave Korn wrote:
> [snip]
> ... because although I really dislike the ...
> 
>     if( arg )
>         x = FuncCall( arg );

Ok, I guess I'll avoid starting a war here. But, IMO the second line is 
right, and the first line should be 'if ( arg )' :-).

That said, C != English. IMO they are allowed to have different rules 
for where to put spaces. (And... perhaps some people whose native 
language != English find the GNU coding style broken for the same 
reasons you think the alternatives are broken :-).)

>   It does lead me to wonder, though, if there isn't a market for a cross
> between CVS and GNU indent that transforms the code on check-out and check-in,
> so that anyone who checks out a sandbox gets the files formatted in their own
> favourite style, and can write code however they most prefer, and everyone
> else sees it in /their/ own favourite style, and nobody even has to know or
> care what the actual underlying format looks like at all.

You mean 'astyle'? :-)

/me starts whistling "Triangle Man", as it seems appropriate.

-- 
Matthew
Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.

Re: religious wars

[One Angry User]

On a windy Monday afternoon, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> --
> Matthew
> Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.

Ofrttr.  Lg rg ngx!

GQX

Re: religious wars

[Matthew Woehlke]

One Angry User wrote:
> On a windy Monday afternoon, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
>> Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.
> 
> Ofrttr.  Lg rg ngx!

Vtss. O ltt /lgdtgft/ youxktr ziqz gxz... :-D

-- 
Matthew
Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.

Re: religious wars

[One Angry User]

On a windy Monday afternoon, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> One Angry User wrote:
> > On a windy Monday afternoon, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's
> > computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
> > > Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.
> >
> > Ofrttr.  Lg rg ngx!
>
> Vtss. O ltt /lgdtgft/ youxktr ziqz gxz... :-D

Cjsy'm ojak.  Muuq jvubm jy ouba.  Yuc lzm's szz gn *fub* tjy ku gm... :-p

OAU  ];->
(reminded of the Hutt language from Star Wars)

Re: religious wars

[Matthew Woehlke]

One Angry User wrote:
> On a windy Monday afternoon, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
>> One Angry User wrote:
>>> On a windy Monday afternoon, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's
>>> computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
>>>> Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.
>>> Ofrttr.  Lg rg ngx!
>> Vtss. O ltt /lgdtgft/ youxktr ziqz gxz... :-D
> 
> Cjsy'm ojak.  Muuq jvubm jy ouba.  Yuc lzm's szz gn *fub* tjy ku gm... :-p

Ght. Itwi immb wll mn nznihhy shpmyus :-). Ari itwybs, Z /qws/ qmyuhxzyd 
tmq lmyd fmr sehyi my itwi ;-).

-- 
Matthew
Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.

Re: religious wars

[One Angry User]

On a rainy Monday afternoon, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> One Angry User wrote:
> > On a windy Monday afternoon, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's
> > computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
> > > One Angry User wrote:
> > > > On a windy Monday afternoon, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew
> > > > Woehlke's
> > > > computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
> > > > > Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.
> > > > Ofrttr.  Lg rg ngx!
> > > Vtss. O ltt /lgdtgft/ youxktr ziqz gxz... :-D
> >
> > Cjsy'm ojak.  Muuq jvubm jy ouba.  Yuc lzm's szz gn *fub* tjy ku gm... :-p
>
> Ght. Itwi immb wll mn nznihhy shpmyus :-). Ari itwybs, Z /qws/ qmyuhxzyd tmq
> lmyd fmr sehyi my itwi ;-).

Bcss, iy kym inn, in vigdlc... :-)

OAU

RE: religious wars

[Dave Korn]

On 11 June 2007 20:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

> Dave Korn wrote:
>> [snip]
>> ... because although I really dislike the ...
>> 
>>     if( arg )
>>         x = FuncCall( arg );
> 
> Ok, I guess I'll avoid starting a war here. But, IMO the second line is
> right, and the first line should be 'if ( arg )' :-).

  You do realise that's inconsistent, yeh?
 
> That said, C != English. IMO they are allowed to have different rules
> for where to put spaces. (And... perhaps some people whose native
> language != English find the GNU coding style broken for the same
> reasons you think the alternatives are broken :-).)

  I mentioned the brackets-bind-to-the-right point for a reason: because that
makes it broken in both english /and/ C.

> You mean 'astyle'? :-)

  Shoulda guessed it would have been thought of before :) I'm sure I'm not the
first one to encounter this problem!
 
> /me starts whistling "Triangle Man", as it seems appropriate.

/me starts whistling the Harry Lime theme.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: religious wars

[Matthew Woehlke]

One Angry User wrote:
> Bcss, iy kym inn, in vigdlc... :-)

woah, that was freaky... one of the iterations is correct (for the 
letters present, anyway) except that 's' and 'l' are switched.

-- 
Matthew
Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.

RE: religious wars

[Dave Korn]

On 12 June 2007 01:25, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

> One Angry User wrote:
>> Bcss, iy kym inn, in vigdlc... :-)
> 
> woah, that was freaky... one of the iterations is correct (for the
> letters present, anyway) except that 's' and 'l' are switched.

  That almost certainly gives me enough clues to work out what ROT you guys
are using by solving a few simultaneous linear equations....

...shame I'm pissed :-D probably won't figure it out tonight anyway!

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: religious wars

[Warren Young]

Dave Korn wrote:
> 
>   You do realise that's inconsistent, yeh?

Why do you expect consistency in a discussion on religion?

RE: religious wars

[Dave Korn]

On 12 June 2007 01:46, Warren Young wrote:

> Dave Korn wrote:
>> 
>>   You do realise that's inconsistent, yeh?
> 
> Why do you expect consistency in a discussion on religion?

  Because (at least) internal consistency is really pretty dam' easy to
achieve as long as you don't have to cross-refer against actual reality or
anything like that.....!

  Oh, plus, as I mentioned earlier....

> ...shame I'm pissed :-D probably won't figure it out tonight anyway!

<hic>

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: religious wars

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> From: Dave Korn
[...]
> 
> ... because although I really dislike the ...
> 
>     if( arg )
>         x = FuncCall( arg );
> 
> ... style and much prefer the GNU ...
> 
>     if (arg)
>         x = FuncCall (arg);
> 
> ... Style

Unfortunately, both are wrong.  The right way to do it is:

	if(whatever)
	{
		// Do something here.  In these nice brackets.
		// Even if it's one line.  Because
		// as soon as you type it it'll need to be two lines.
		// And then you'll have caused yourself a defect.
	}

	FunctionCall(arg1, another_arg);

...etc.

> (and anyway, just exactly which direction do 
> brackets bind in in C, anyway, eh?),

As shown above, and like thus:

	if(...)
	{
		// Do it.
	}

	while(...)
	{
		// Do it again.
	}

	FunctionDef(...)
	{
		// Do some stuff.
	}

>   It does lead me to wonder, though, if there isn't a market 
> for a cross between CVS and GNU indent that transforms the 
> code on check-out and check-in, so that anyone who checks out 
> a sandbox gets the files formatted in their own favourite 
> style, and can write code however they most prefer, and 
> everyone else sees it in /their/ own favourite style, and 
> nobody even has to know or care what the actual underlying 
> format looks like at all.
> 

Sure there is, I thought of that one like a decade ago.  Trouble is, now
you're asking folks to agree on the format of the formatting specifications.
Maybe some time-travelling, space-faring, utopian civilization in the far
distant future will be able to come to some sort of agreement on such
things, but for our lifetimes such an harmonious coexistence shall remain
firmly in the realm of fantasy.

Now if you will kindly excuse me, I have work to do in *this* century,
sorting out my carriage returns from my linefeeds before my VT-52's screen
gets burned in.  GOOD DAY SIR!

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: religious wars

[Matthew Woehlke]

Dave Korn wrote:
> On 11 June 2007 20:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> ... because although I really dislike the ...
>>>
>>>     if( arg )
>>>         x = FuncCall( arg );
>> Ok, I guess I'll avoid starting a war here. But, IMO the second line is
>> right, and the first line should be 'if ( arg )' :-).
> 
>   You do realise that's inconsistent, yeh?

It is? Functions ('if' != function) have no space before the 
parentheses, semicolon has no space before it... and everything else 
gets a space on both sides :-).

-- 
Matthew
Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.

RE: religious wars

[Dave Korn]

On 12 June 2007 01:53, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>> From: Dave Korn
> [...]
>> 
>> ... because although I really dislike the ...
>> 
>>     if( arg )
>>         x = FuncCall( arg );
>> 
>> ... style and much prefer the GNU ...
>> 
>>     if (arg)
>>         x = FuncCall (arg);
>> 
>> ... Style
> 
> Unfortunately, both are wrong.  The right way to do it is:
> 
> 	if(whatever)

  Nahhh, that's so obviously not right at all!  Because I say so, et de
gustibus non disputandum est, which means "I'm right in matters of taste so
don't argue"![1]

> 	{
> 		// Do something here.  In these nice brackets.
> 		// Even if it's one line.  Because
> 		// as soon as you type it it'll need to be two lines.
> 		// And then you'll have caused yourself a defect.


  Heh.  Gary, this may be a one-off, but I'll let you have it in writing
anyway:

   I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID![*]


> 	}
> 
> 	FunctionCall(arg1, another_arg);
> 
> ...etc.
> 
>> (and anyway, just exactly which direction do
>> brackets bind in in C, anyway, eh?),
> 
> As shown above

  Ah, glad you agree with me, I also think brackets should bind like above:

>> (and anyway, just exactly which direction do
   ^^

>> brackets bind in in C, anyway, eh?),
                                   ^^^
> 
> As shown above

  Seconded!

> , and like thus:

  Again, wrong.  See [1] above.


> Sure there is, I thought of that one like a decade ago.  Trouble is, now
> you're asking folks to agree on the format of the formatting specifications.

  Wait!  I thot XML had come to save us all!???  Not ?!?

> Maybe some time-travelling, space-faring, utopian civilization in the far
> distant future will be able to come to some sort of agreement on such
> things, but for our lifetimes such an harmonious coexistence shall remain
> firmly in the realm of fantasy.

  Nahh, I've seen the future.  The time-travelling, space-faring, utopian
civilizations all exterminated each other in a merciless war over whether to
use CR-LF or just plain LF line-endings.  (Much like the tiny, scurrying,
rat-like mammals who survived the meteor-strike that killed the dinosaurs, a
few Mac users were seen scurrying away, clutching their precious CR sacred
relics, accompanied by a few hippos.  I reckon we won't have heard the last of
them...)

> Now if you will kindly excuse me, I have work to do in *this* century,
> sorting out my carriage returns from my linefeeds before my VT-52's screen
> gets burned in.  GOOD DAY SIR!

***********************RRRRRRRRING!*


    cheers,
      DaveK

[*]   - this offer void where prohibited by law.[**]
[**]  - or just plain common sense.[***]
[***] - sorry, guess I just couldn't leave it without some kind of disclaimer,
could I, after all?
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: religious wars

[Dave Korn]

On 12 June 2007 02:11, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 11 June 2007 20:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> ... because although I really dislike the ...
>>>> 
>>>>     if( arg )
>>>>         x = FuncCall( arg );
>>> Ok, I guess I'll avoid starting a war here. But, IMO the second line is
>>> right, and the first line should be 'if ( arg )' :-).
>> 
>>   You do realise that's inconsistent, yeh?
> 
> It is? Functions ('if' != function) have no space before the
> parentheses,

  So, why should there be a difference between a function call, and any of the
other statements that are valid C?  My way:

stmt:=
  <function-name> (args ...)
  (comma-expression, ...)
  if (cond ...) <stmt>
  var = assignment;
  do <stmt> while (cond)
  var = (assignment);


  Your way:

stmt:=
  <function-name>( args ... )
  ( comma-expression , ... )
  if( cond ...) <stmt>
  var = assignment;
  do <stmt> while( cond )
  var = ( assignment );




  I think I hace more symmetry and orthogonality.




  And ask yourself:  even if - particularly if - you count them as different:
would you really write:

  return( a + b );

and not 

  return (a + b);




  ??????


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: religious wars

[One Angry User]

On a balmy Monday night, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> One Angry User wrote:
> > Bcss, iy kym inn, in vigdlc... :-)
>
> woah, that was freaky... one of the iterations is correct (for the
> letters present, anyway) except that 's' and 'l' are switched.

You mean you actually iterated 41 times instead of once in the other
direction? :-)

OAU

Re: religious wars

[Matthew Woehlke]

One Angry User wrote:
> On a balmy Monday night, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
>> One Angry User wrote:
>>> Bcss, iy kym inn, in vigdlc... :-)
>> woah, that was freaky... one of the iterations is correct (for the
>> letters present, anyway) except that 's' and 'l' are switched.
> 
> You mean you actually iterated 41 times instead of once in the other
> direction? :-)

Yeah... <up>, <enter> takes /soooo/ much effort, dontcha know :-).
(I didn't know what direction to try, so I picked one, and it seems 
eventually it worked :-).)

-- 
Matthew
Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.

Re: religious wars

[Matthew Woehlke]

Dave Korn wrote:
>   And ask yourself:  even if - particularly if - you count them as different:
> would you really write:
> 
>   return( a + b );
> 
> and not 
> 
>   return (a + b);

You're forgetting my control statement rule, again. I would write:
    return ( a + b );
...or, actually:
     return a + b;
;-)

-- 
Matthew
Ngx iqct zgg dxei zodt gf ngxk iqfrl.

Re: religious wars

[One Angry User]

On a humid Monday night, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> One Angry User wrote:
> > On a balmy Monday night, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's
> > computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
> > > One Angry User wrote:
> > > > Bcss, iy kym inn, in vigdlc... :-)
> > > woah, that was freaky... one of the iterations is correct (for the
> > > letters present, anyway) except that 's' and 'l' are switched.
> >
> > You mean you actually iterated 41 times instead of once in the other
> > direction? :-)
>
> Yeah... <up>, <enter> takes /soooo/ much effort, dontcha know :-).
> (I didn't know what direction to try, so I picked one, and it seems
> eventually it worked :-).)

Luckily for you, that function has an iteration period of 42.
Coincidence?  I think not!

OAU

Re: religious wars

[morgan gangwere]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

One Angry User wrote:
> On a humid Monday night, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
> 
>> One Angry User wrote:
>>> On a balmy Monday night, the 11th day of June, 2007, Matthew Woehlke's
>>> computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:
>>>> One Angry User wrote:
>>>>> Bcss, iy kym inn, in vigdlc... :-)
>>>> woah, that was freaky... one of the iterations is correct (for the
>>>> letters present, anyway) except that 's' and 'l' are switched.
>>> You mean you actually iterated 41 times instead of once in the other
>>> direction? :-)
>> Yeah... <up>, <enter> takes /soooo/ much effort, dontcha know :-).
>> (I didn't know what direction to try, so I picked one, and it seems
>> eventually it worked :-).)
> 
> Luckily for you, that function has an iteration period of 42.
> Coincidence?  I think not!
> 
> OAU
> 
'WVc1a0lHRnViM1JvWlhJZ2RYTmxiR1Z6Y3lCc2FXNWxJR0psWTJGMWMyVWdkR2hsSUhkb2IyeGxJ\nS
E41YzNSbGJTQnBjeUJpWldsdQpaeUJ0WlhOelpXUWdkWEE9Cg==\n' !!

'SlpWRUtNU1NLUk1UQVRMS0lFWlU0UkMySTVHV1VRSlRKWkNGVVIyT1BKQVhTVEtFTEUyVTQ2U1JQ\nR
kdVSVdTSEpaVkZTTVNPTkpFWFFUTEtJRVpVNlZDMkk1SEhVVkxaSlZDRlNOQ09OSkNUR1RUS0xF\nWVU
yMlNCR01GRTRSQ1pHUkhHVVZMWkpWQ0ZTTktPTk5LVEdUU0VMRVlVNDIyTkdKSVhVV0pWSlpW\nR0dNU
09LUk5FTVRUS0pVWkU0VkNKTzVIR1dXSlNKWlZFUzUyT05KQ1hTVEtFTU4zVTQ2U0pHSkpH\nVVdMMkp
aNUZLTTJOSVJNVEtDU09OTktURVRTVUpGNEFVPT09\n'


(give ya'll a hint: recursive. encoding. differing levels of it too :P )



- --
Just a Thought
Morgan Gangwere

For those who want my PGP key:
http://pengunassasin.is-a-geek.com/pgpKey.html

******* Wisdom for the day *******
* Dont rawquote - it gives       *
*          spammers free bait!   *
**********************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGdXQeCF9T/dUsmAgRAoJGAKCugzZu1XmJUSugzfAKrf0D9FQtigCg2Plb
CDjZ4RCwnTMVo3Uk+IU3Qlg=
=3Xv7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----