Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D0104102A5 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 20:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 62584 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2014 20:16:58 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 62029 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2014 20:16:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 62018 invoked by uid 99); 4 Apr 2014 20:16:55 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 20:16:55 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [203.216.7.223] (HELO www.atypical.net) (203.216.7.223) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 20:16:50 +0000 Received: from 69-165-165-30.dsl.teksavvy.com ([69.165.165.30] helo=localhost) by www.atypical.net with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WWAXK-0002Re-Mo for dev@couchdb.apache.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2014 05:16:26 +0900 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:16:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Joan Touzet To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Message-ID: <33318449.144.1396642580957.JavaMail.Joan@RITA> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Erlang whitespace standards (was: [POLL]) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Thus spake Alexander Shorin: > I just faced another indention case which left out of scope of the vote: > https://gist.github.com/kxepal/2c09fb5348ead90bea04 > > Personally, I'm for 1) variant there. Considering the Z*Y=X approach and the case statement proposal, and also http://erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/expressions.html#id77318 which has the official guideline, I would say 3) is probably the best mapping, wouldn't you? > Another interesting case is anonymous function: > https://gist.github.com/kxepal/c5480209af9e93a14155 > > I prefer 3) one. Paul showed an anonymous function example in the follow-up I sent, see : https://gist.github.com/davisp/8665dd5ca023b5da8f24#file-indent-erl-L17-L24 but it does not cover multiple guarded variants. 3) seems reasonable to me but I defer to others.... -Joan