Prev: Qooxdoo--garbage?
Next: ECMA-262-5 in detail. Chapter 2. Strict Mode.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 1 Jun 2010 10:44
Garrett Smith wrote:

> David Mark wrote:
>> The source starts in \framework\source\class\qx. This folder contains
>> 7 scripts. Bootstrap, Class, Interface, Mixin, Part, Theme and the
>> very oddly named __init__.js. My guess is that that last one is the
>> entry point.
>>
>> /**
>> * This is the framework's top-level namespace or "package".
>> *
>> * It contains some fundamental classes, while the rest of the class
>> hierarchy
>> * is available in the corresponding sub packages. Please see the
>> descriptions
>
> The code is wrapping.

That is not in itself a Bad Thing.

> It is not executable as transmitted

I would submit that code reviews do not need to be executable as
transmitted, nor would that be wanted (think of the amount of information to
be transmitted but _not_ being commented upon!).

Therefore, AISB, it would be a good idea that code being reviewed should be
marked as quotation if possible, to clearly distinguish it from comments and
code suggestions; if the original code has not been discussed in the thread
previously, then as third-party quotation with `|'. Many newsreaders
provide the capability to do that automatically. (And no, I do not think
that the limited capabilities of the buggy Web interface of the Google
Groups archive should define the posting guidelines for any newsgroup.)

> and is harder to read than it would be, had it been formatted to < 72
> character width.

Let x be the length of the longest line in a posting except the new-line
character (sequence), that which you mislabeled "character width". Then
insisting on x < 72 is utter nonsense, far from reality: very few people
would write code like this (not even you), that would waste a lot of disk
space and add bogus LOCs. 72 <= x <= 80 is reasonable. x <= 80 is
necessary since a newsgroup, especially a technical one, may be read from a
standard issue virtual terminal, and there is of course the basic
readability aspect of not having too many characters in one line (think of
newspapers and books).

Further, you cannot reasonably blame David (or anyone else) for not
rewrapping each and every LOC in *other's* code when making their *review*.
The (qooxdoo) authors should have wrapped earlier and used proper (multi-
line documentation) comments in the first place; IMHO, that the code is
wrapped when posted to a newsgroup is good indication that it has never been
seriously peer-reviewed before.

When I had quoted from qooxdoo code¹, I had to trim the indentation to that
it would fit into a line of max. 76 characters (that is where I draw the
line in Usenet, as it has served me well in the past). Still, I needed to
place one word in a comment on the next line and add the `//'. While that
makes it easier visible that this line belongs to the comment, it also moves
the rest of the lines one forward, thereby changing the line numbers to
something different then used in a possible source code reference. And that
was only one occurrence.

This should be taken into consideration when defining posting guidelines for
this newsgroup. (It should be obvious that such rules cannot be enforced
here, only lived by regulars providing a good example.)

> Comments or corrections to those documents are welcome -- I'll try to
> fix them if they can be pointed out.

[x] done


HTH

PointedEars
___________
¹ <news:4830686.Dx1VlcvoiG(a)PointedEars.de>
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Qooxdoo--garbage?
Next: ECMA-262-5 in detail. Chapter 2. Strict Mode.