Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Formatting Forth source code
Message-ID: <2754.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 13 May 91 11:56:53 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 37

Category 2,  Topic 13
Message 21        Fri May 10, 1991
G.LEFAVE [Gene]              at 14:18 CDT
 
I've spent many years trying to decide this question.  I have come to favor
Dennis's style for the following reasons.

1.  Block oriented text generally gets a couple of entire definitons on the
screen at once.

2.  Shadow blocks and the simple forth index are the easiest way I've found to
understand a program.  One can read the shadow's to find the point in a
program that is of interest, then read the source.

3. Empty shadow blocks are painfully obvious on a listing and encourage
programmers to fill them in.


My own style is to try to terminate the lines with branching words. But I have
to confess to having been taught by Kim Harris.  A proponent of that style, 
the idea being that Forth using RPN notation should actually be indented from
the right.
       .......           IF
         ...............
       ........        ELSE
         ...............
       ........        THEN

I try not to get in these discussions, they're just as bad as the {} debates
in another language.


-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp