[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Code formatter

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: Code formatter
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:23:55 -0700

On 11/13/09 9:59 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Chris Snyder wrote Friday, November 13, 2009 4:35 PM
>> Graham Percival wrote:
>>> I know that you're thinking "this is ridiculous", but unless
>>> somebody does it, newbies will continue to face this difficulty.
>>> This job won't get done by itself.
>> Yes, I do think it's ridiculous. As I understand, you're saying,
>> "go find a tool that makes the code conform to a standard we
>> haven't defined yet."
> Chris is right: if progress is to be made the rules
> must be defined first.  They can be defined
> incrementally; in fact some already exist.  If we
> can't agree on the rules there is little point in
> searching for a tool.

The rules are already defined (albeit unsatisfactorily in my opinion):

Do whatever emacs does.

Yes, this is unsatisfactory, because many of us don't use emacs.
Nevertheless, it is the defined standard.

Here is some background on the issue:

Jan believes that code formatting standards should be no more restrictive
than the GNU standards.  So if we want to make the standards more explicit,
we should handle that by proposing changes on emacs-devel, rather than by
creating LilyPond-specific standards.

As he points out, LilyPond *is* a GNU software package, so it makes sense
for GNU tools to be the standard tools.

Unfortunately, this does cause some grief with non-Linux developers.
However, it is quite easy to set up a Linux VM on Windows or on OSX.  So
those of us who use non GNU/Linux systems can get access if we are willing.

This same issue is relevant in the discussion about going to Lua.  Lua is
not GNU software.  It does use the MIT license, which is GPL compatible,
according to the FSF.

It seems to me that we don't have support from the core developers to move
to a more Windows-friendly development environment.  Of course, since
LilyPond is free software, anybody could develop a derivative work that was
developed in the tools of their choice on Windows.  But it would be a huge
undertaking, and it would split the development community.

So I think we are where we are, and are likely to stay there:  GNU/Linux
is the primary development platform, and the standards will remain as
GNU standards.

I'm not trying to dump on anybody.  I'm just trying to explain the world as
I see it.  We can expend a bunch of energy trying to change the world, or we
can expend energy figuring out how to work in the current world.  For me,
that means trying to work in the current world.  Hence, the importance of
the Contributors' Guide, and my efforts to improve it.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]