Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!lagache
From: lagache@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: PROLOG code formatting (random musings)
Message-ID: <6890@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 7 Feb 88 00:27:57 GMT
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: lagache@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 31
Keywords: Pretty Printers, Structured editors, coding style.



               I was interested and somewhat amused by Richard
          O'Keefe's comments about PROLOG coding style.  Since I am
          equipped with the barest of development tools, I enjoy
          neither the benefits, nor suffer from the curses of a code
          formatter/pretty printer.  While there are a number of
          conventions for proper PROLOG coding style, coding (in any
          language) is a very individualistic thing, one of the few
          places where a programmer can express the artistic aspects of
          what is truly a craft, not a science.

               While I know of a couple of simple PROLOG pretty
          printers (I suppose based on LISP conventions), I would be
          interested to learn if there has been much effort invested
          into designing PROLOG pretty printers and/or structured
          editors.  Does someone have a PROLOG equivalent of EMACS
          running around, and what should a PROLOG structured editor
          look like?

          Any comments?

                                        Edouard Lagache
                                        lagache@violet.berkeley.edu



          P.S. While this sort of discussion probably should occur
               elsewhere, one interesting question would be how to
               design a "tuneable" structured editor that could be made
               to conform to a programmers codings tastes.