--- Richard Fateman <fateman@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> indents in the lisp code??
> It seems to me there is a well-defined standard
> for lisp pretty-printing in emacs.
Then that's probably the way to go for the lisp code.
I'm guessing whatever our indentation is right now,
it doesn't conform to any modern standard (or probably
any standard at all).
If I understand correctly, if we do things using the
pretty printer any lisp code we wanted to incorporate
from sources unknown could also be quickly and automatically
converted to the pretty print layout?
> There are other ways, and in some cases I
> dislike the emacs standard (e.g. how it does IF),
> but the lisp community has pounded on this for
> a long time. I don't believe there is much
> to be gained by claiming the lisp source code
> for maxima is somehow not like other
> lisp code.
Probably true - if a more or less universal standard
exists that can handle the Maxima lisp codebase, that
would seem to make sense.
> Or are there people not using emacs?
I expect there are, but I don't know if that matters.
Is the pretty-printing (as its name indicates) human
readable? If so an editor other than emacs would
perhaps be less convenient but would still work fine.
> Or do you mean conventions for indenting Maxima code?
> RJF
Hmm. Now there's an interesting point. Should we have
a convention? I was thinking of lisp code, but we should
probably address Maxima code as well.
CY
P.S. - Jim, do you think we could add to the 5.9.3 release
agenda deciding on and implimenting some source code
level standard for file description and documentation?
Not require that everything be documented (that's a lot
of work for 5.9.3) but just decide on a structure to use
and maybe put the framework in place.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover