Re: Convention for new “guix style“?

["André A. Gomes" <andremegafone@gmail.com>]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> And “guix style” is a step toward fixing Danny’s words:
>
>         FWIW, I do find it strange that Lisp projects, despite using a
>         minimal-syntax language (mostly in order to conserve its regular
>         tree structure), do not usually automatically format source code
>         as they check in, but Go projects, using the prime example of an
>         irregular C-like language, DOES usually use code formatters
>         automatically when checking in.  That is some strange reversal
>         of strengths that I wouldn't have expected.
>
>         <https://yhetil.org/guix/20201204161257.64363a5a@scratchpost.org/>

I agree and disagree.

(Disagree).  Lisps hardly ever need external formaters or linters since
you basically write down an AST.  The "linting" job is done by the
editor itself (think C-M-q and electrical indentation in major modes).
Yes, there is ambiguity in some cases, but the decision is (rightly)
left to the programmer.  I believe that it's precisely the lack of
"structure" in other languages that motivates the need for such tooling.

(Agree).  If we turn to the concrete issue at hand, cosmetic and "diff"
issues of Guix packages, then I agree that this would (ideally) be a
task for a tool (guix lint).  Because it's important to have consistency
and we can agree on the standards.  I'm arguing that in this case the
ambiguity (mentioned above) vanishes, and so the style can be enforced.

When I go shopping, I write the list down in same way you do, Zimoun :)


-- 
André A. Gomes
"Free Thought, Free World"