5 ms·

You could configure your IDE to re-format files into your favorite format and just have a pre-commit hook that formats them back into the official format. That'

You could configure your IDE to re-format files into your favorite format and just have a pre-commit hook that formats them back into the official format. That's how I work. No arguments about style and formatting, yet I get to make the code look how I personally prefer it.

CrLf 7y ago
There is no such thing as "my favorite format" in that sense. Also, I don't mind reading code in other people's "favorite format" nor do I have any problem in following another person's style if that's the style agreed upon by the team.
a1369209993 7y ago
No, we can't. My (and, by the sound of it, CrLf's) favorite format relies on information that your pre-commit hook has artificially removed from the code. Eg: munge(gidget, thing1,thing2,thing3); cmplt(dtypeA,valueA, dtypeB,valueB); (Most cases are more subtle (and thus less amenable to "oh, you just need to build a complete static type checker into the formatter") than this, but I wanted an obvious example.)
- RussianCow 7y ago
  It seems like the signature of the functions should be different, especially the second example. I would have written the cmplt function to take tuple pairs: cmplt( (type_a, value_a), (type_b, value_b), ) That's much more clear about the relationship between each pair of values either way, and would get formatted nicely by Black.
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    Sorry, should have clarified: my example was written in C[0][1]; cmplt is something like (Dtyp* ,Dval* ,Dtyp* ,Dval* ), which is what I was alluding to with "just need a type checker". Also, in the code I anonymised that from, cmplt and munge are imported (well, #included) functions from a different library. 0: which doesn't have tuples anyway; you could use structs, but it doesn't really work well in context/practice. 1: I don't use python frecently enough to have ready examples of autoformatter stupidity on hand for it.
  - edflsafoiewq 7y ago
    No it wouldn't; black will put that all on one line if it can. The semantic information in vertical space is lost. A better example is a matrix laid out as a grid, which auto-formatters always destroy mat3x3( 0, a, -b, -a, 0, c, b, -c, 0, )
    - a1369209993 7y ago
      To be fair, I suspect RussianCow would write that as something like: mat3x3( rowvec3( 0, a, b), rowvec3(-a, 0, c), rowvec3( b,-c, 0), ) Which is probably better, especially with tuples instead of struct{Scalar[3]}. Doesn't fix mat3x3(( 0, a, b),(-a, 0, c),( b,-c, 0)) , though.
  - zestyping 7y ago
    It would also have been a better way to define the function, in Python 2. def cmplt((type_a, value_a), (type_b, value_b)): return ... I was sad when they removed argument unpacking in Python 3. I thought it was a really elegant feature of the language.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      Pretty much no one used it, and it was....weird. what do you think the result of def cmplt((type_a, value_a), (type_b, value_b)): return locals() is? Now granted, you shouldn't do that, but what you think it is? a dict with 4 keys, right? {'type_a': ..., 'value_b': ...}. That's wrong. It has those four keys, and two more: '.0' and .1', whose values are the packed tuples. !?!?!

CrLf 7y ago

There is no such thing as "my favorite format" in that sense. Also, I don't mind reading code in other people's "favorite format" nor do I have any problem in following another person's style if that's the style agreed upon by the team.

a1369209993 7y ago

No, we can't. My (and, by the sound of it, CrLf's) favorite format relies on information that your pre-commit hook has artificially removed from the code. Eg: munge(gidget, thing1,thing2,thing3); cmplt(dtypeA,valueA, dtypeB,valueB); (Most cases are more subtle (and thus less amenable to "oh, you just need to build a complete static type checker into the formatter") than this, but I wanted an obvious example.)

RussianCow 7y ago
It seems like the signature of the functions should be different, especially the second example. I would have written the cmplt function to take tuple pairs: cmplt( (type_a, value_a), (type_b, value_b), ) That's much more clear about the relationship between each pair of values either way, and would get formatted nicely by Black.
- a1369209993 7y ago
  Sorry, should have clarified: my example was written in C[0][1]; cmplt is something like (Dtyp* ,Dval* ,Dtyp* ,Dval* ), which is what I was alluding to with "just need a type checker". Also, in the code I anonymised that from, cmplt and munge are imported (well, #included) functions from a different library. 0: which doesn't have tuples anyway; you could use structs, but it doesn't really work well in context/practice. 1: I don't use python frecently enough to have ready examples of autoformatter stupidity on hand for it.
- edflsafoiewq 7y ago
  No it wouldn't; black will put that all on one line if it can. The semantic information in vertical space is lost. A better example is a matrix laid out as a grid, which auto-formatters always destroy mat3x3( 0, a, -b, -a, 0, c, b, -c, 0, )
  - a1369209993 7y ago
    To be fair, I suspect RussianCow would write that as something like: mat3x3( rowvec3( 0, a, b), rowvec3(-a, 0, c), rowvec3( b,-c, 0), ) Which is probably better, especially with tuples instead of struct{Scalar[3]}. Doesn't fix mat3x3(( 0, a, b),(-a, 0, c),( b,-c, 0)) , though.
- zestyping 7y ago
  It would also have been a better way to define the function, in Python 2. def cmplt((type_a, value_a), (type_b, value_b)): return ... I was sad when they removed argument unpacking in Python 3. I thought it was a really elegant feature of the language.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    Pretty much no one used it, and it was....weird. what do you think the result of def cmplt((type_a, value_a), (type_b, value_b)): return locals() is? Now granted, you shouldn't do that, but what you think it is? a dict with 4 keys, right? {'type_a': ..., 'value_b': ...}. That's wrong. It has those four keys, and two more: '.0' and .1', whose values are the packed tuples. !?!?!