[Bioperl-l] Perltidy and... SVN and ...Re: Perltidy

Chris Fields cjfields at uiuc.edu
Fri Jun 15 10:22:23 EDT 2007


On Jun 15, 2007, at 5:56 AM, Sean Davis wrote:

> Sendu Bala wrote:
>> If its going to be difficult and a hassle, for such an unnecessary  
>> thing
>> I'm not sure its worth it. There are more pressing things to be  
>> done for
>> Bioperl.
>>
>> If I can just run perltidy on the entire package and commit, I'd  
>> do it.
>> If that's not appropriate, I won't.
>
> I agree with the sentiment noted above.  I'm a bit of an outsider  
> here,
> but bioperl is a collaborative project.  Not everyone has the same
> sentiments about what "correct" style means.  As a programmer, I  
> really
> wouldn't want significant changes on the style of my code.  And perl
> happily puts up with many styles.  I would say leave things as they
> are--let the individual programmers choose.  It reduces the amount of
> work of questionable importance and allows the coding style freedom  
> that
> perl supports.
>
> Just my $.02.
>
> Sean

I tend to run it on modules that need some reformatting  
(SearchIO::blast comes to mind).  I believe you're correct when this  
comes down to programming style, but I think this echoes a sentiment  
(frustration, perhaps) that some of us have with long-term  
maintenance of said code.

Maybe a compromise:  include a copy of .perltidyrc with the  
distribution that goes by what a consensus wants or by the general  
rules laid out in Perl Best Practices (spaced settings, use of spaces  
over tabs, etc).  Conversion would be encouraged but voluntary, with  
the caveat that if someone needs to clean up code down the road (bug  
fixes, enhancements, etc) and if the original author isn't able to  
add it in themselves, it could be perltidy'd in order to help the  
developer (locate and fix the issue)|(add relevant enhancement where  
needed).

chris



More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list