Open Stack

On 11/13/2013 08:08 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 14 November 2013 13:59, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> 
>> This is an area where we actually have consensus in our docs (have had
>> for a while), the reviewer was being consistent with them, and it feels
>> like you are reopening that for personal preference.
> 
> Sorry that it feels that way. My personal code also uses ()
> overwhelmingly - so this isn't a personal agenda issue. I brought it
> up because the person that wrote the code had chosen to use \, and as
> far as I knew we didn't have a hard decision either way - and the
> style guide we have talks preference not requirement, but the review
> didn't distinguish between whether it's a suggestion or a requirement.
> I'm seeking clarity so I can review more effectively and so that our
> code doesn't end up consistent but hard to read.

I'd say we've got an expression of clarity here - which means
potentially a patch to the hacking guide to clarify the language on what
our choice is, as well as the addition of a hacking check to enforce it
would be in bounds.

>> Honestly I find \ at the end of a line ugly as sin, and completely
>> jarring to read. I actually do like the second one better. I don't care
>> enough to change a policy on it, but we do already have a policy, so it
>> seems pretty pedantic, and not useful.
> 
> Ok, thats interesting. Readability matters, and if most folk find that
> even this case - which is pretty much the one case where I would argue
> for \ - is still easier to read with (), then thats cool.
> 
>> Bringing up for debate the style guide every time it disagrees with your
>> personal preference isn't a very effective use of people's time.
>> Especially on settled matters.
> 
> Totally not what I'm doing. I've been told that much of our style
> guide was copied lock stock and barrel from some Google Python style
> guide, so I can't tell what is consensus and what is 'what someone
> copied down one day'. Particularly when there is no rationale included
> against the point - its a black box and entirely opaque.
> 
> -Rob
>