Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm
From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C Indentation Survey Results (long...)
Message-ID: <911@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 03:02:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.911
Posted: Mon Apr 29 03:02:14 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 08:01:20 EDT
References: <9930@brl-tgr.ARPA> <381@busch.UUCP> <5497@utzoo.UUCP> <5548@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 28
Summary: 

In article <5548@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> ...[customizable pretty-printers solve a lot of the style problems]...
>
>A customizable pretty-printer that can read minds, so it can sort out
>those formatting decisions that are determined by intent rather than
>just by syntax.

The LISP community has been using customizable pretty-printers for quite
a while now, so I suspect that the intent vs. syntax problem is
inconsequential. Of course, C may be different, but there is only one
way to find out.

>To quote our locally-altered manual page for cb(1), under BUGS:
>
>	A paragrapher cannot judge the programmer's intent, and hence cannot
>	do as good a job of displaying it as the programmer can.
>	Paragraphers should be used to deal with emergencies, not as a
>	substitute for doing it right the first time.

Correct, so I do it right and don't use the (to me, incredibly
unreadable) K&R format. Now, if only I could convince most of the rest
of the C world of this :-).

	<mike

PS - readability is personal things, and you *will not* convince me that
the K&R format is readable, just as I won't convince you that it isn't.
On the other hand, you might convince me to use the K&R format.