Re: GOP-PROP 3: C++ formatting

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:12:25PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Graham Percival
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I’m going to make the bold step of assuming that we will eliminate
> > tabs in all C++ files. I personally like the idea of tabs, but
> > from an examination of source code styles (both official and
> > unofficial) in various projects, I must admit that this ship has
> > sailed.
> 
> I used to think that way, until the following links gave me second thoughts:
> http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs-en/TabsvsSpaces
> http://www.jwz.org/doc/tabs-vs-spaces.html

Hmm?  At a quick glance, it seems like I'm saying most the same
stuff as the second link.
- "   1. When reading code, and when they're done writing new
  code, they care about how many screen columns by which the code
tends to indent when a new scope (or sexpr, or whatever) opens. "
- "points 2 and 3 are technical issues abotu interoperability...
  the real religious war here is point #1"
- "My opinion is that the best way to solve the technical issues
  is to mandate that the ASCII #9 TAB character never appear in
  disk files"
(for us: s/disk/git/ )

- He goes on to say "I just care that two people editing the same
  file use the same interpretations"
(however, we have a significant number of contributors who are
not religious about their text editors, and/or use editors other
than vi or emacs, and thus specifying a complicated tab system
is only likely to confuse them)

> Specifically, the "tabs are for indentation, spaces for alignment"
> thing does actually make sense in Lisp-like code (even
> though,generally speaking yeah, tabs must die). Just out of curiosity,
> does this motto of yours extend to Scheme? We currently have tabs in
> some .scm files but not all, not to mention Schemey .ly files...

GOP-PROP 3 is only about C++ code.  We'll discuss scheme
indentation, and lilypond indentation, in later proposals --
probably August?

Cheers,
- Graham