Re: GOP-PROP 10: scheme indentation

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 05:30:35PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> On 9/14/11 4:31 PM, "Graham Percival" <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> > There's been no action on this for a few weeks.  I'm starting to
>> > wonder if we should abandon this proposal and try bringing it back
>> > in a few months.
>> 
>> Why?
> ...
>> AFAICS, the script works fine.  Neil isn't yet satisfied, but he hasn't
>> identified any weaknesses; he's just expressed a vague concern.
>
> I'm content to interpret silence as consent for most changes, but
> changing the indentation of multiple files is a relatively
> destructive policy.
>
> 1) almost any existing patch to scheme files will break
> 2) it makes the git history harder to look through (unless you use
> the git --ignore-whitespace option)
>
> I think we should be conservative about indentation policies; we
> shouldn't rush forwards if a main developer has concerns.

The main problem is that it is catastrophic with regard to rebasing, and
still rather disruptive with regard to merging.

Personally, I'd prefer it if we focused on solving rather than creating
real problems.  It is not like we are talking about fixing
machine-generated sources without indentation here.  Sources _are_
readable, they just don't look quite uniform.  But I think that the
non-whitespace parts of our code offer enough and more significant
opportunities for cleanup work.

-- 
David Kastrup