Unsatisfying arithmetic sequences e.g. [0 .. n - 1] #104

New Issue

2018-01-13T02:10:21+01:00

chreekat commented

2018-01-13 02:10:21 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I'm not really sure what the best practice for the various cases are. These seems pretty reasonable:

-- 👍 
[1..8]
[0..]

I am less certain about more complex expressions. I personally just remove all whitespace within arithmetic sequences, but I don't feel particularly good about it:

-- ???
[0..n-1]

But like the title says, this is pretty unsatisfying:

-- 👎
[0 .. n - 1]

Have you put any thought into the possibilities here?

I'm not really sure what the best practice for the various cases are. These seems pretty reasonable: ```haskell -- 👍 [1..8] [0..] ``` I am less certain about more complex expressions. I personally just remove all whitespace within arithmetic sequences, but I don't feel particularly good about it: ```haskell -- ??? [0..n-1] ``` But like the title says, this is pretty unsatisfying: ```haskell -- 👎 [0 .. n - 1] ``` Have you put any thought into the possibilities here?

tfausak commented

2018-01-13 15:04:56 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

For what it's worth, I like how Brittany currently formats these. I prefer putting spaces around operators, and I consider .. to be an operator of sorts.

For what it's worth, I like how Brittany currently formats these. I prefer putting spaces around operators, and I consider `..` to be an operator of sorts.

chreekat commented

2018-01-13 16:55:58 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@tfausak I can't really argue. I put spaces around operators, in general. I guess I just got used to seeing no spaces in most of the examples I come across.

eborden commented

2018-01-15 21:23:44 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Yeah, I'm with @tfausak on this one. I like the way brittany is currently formatting.

Yeah, I'm with @tfausak on this one. I like the way `brittany` is currently formatting.

👍 1

lspitzner commented

2018-01-16 00:15:47 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Reminds me of #67 (spaces used in sections). More generally, it is again the decision between "shorter" and "more consistent". There are two reasons for brittany sticking to the "consistency" route currently:

It is easier to implement. [0..n-1] would be surprisingly hard to implement, because the layouting of expressions now would be "context sensitive". The simpler cases would still need special-case handling (e.g. if we wanted [literal..literal] but otherwise [expr .. expr]).
Consistency is good for readability, and the two spaces you gain here are not really worth it.

The thought process is

n-1 vs n - 1 - use latter because no context sensitive layouting for exprs
[0..n - 1] vs [0 .. n - 1] - use latter because former is confusing space-precedence-implication-wise.
[0..10] vs [0 .. 10] - use latter because more consistent with [0 .. n - 1]

Is that convincing enough? :) I know in both cases there is a lot of code out there that omits the spaces for certain cases, e.g. for sections (x:) or (20*), and here [1..] or [a..b]. And I still do write [1..10] myself. But I think the current behaviour is the "correct" one.

Reminds me of #67 (spaces used in sections). More generally, it is again the decision between "shorter" and "more consistent". There are two reasons for brittany sticking to the "consistency" route currently: 1) It is easier to implement. `[0..n-1]` would be surprisingly hard to implement, because the layouting of expressions now would be "context sensitive". The simpler cases would still need special-case handling (e.g. if we wanted `[literal..literal]` but otherwise `[expr .. expr]`). 2) Consistency is good for readability, and the two spaces you gain here are not really worth it. The thought process is - `n-1` vs `n - 1` - use latter because no context sensitive layouting for exprs - `[0..n - 1]` vs `[0 .. n - 1]` - use latter because former is confusing space-precedence-implication-wise. - `[0..10]` vs `[0 .. 10]` - use latter because more consistent with `[0 .. n - 1]` Is that convincing enough? :) I know in both cases there is a lot of code out there that omits the spaces for certain cases, e.g. for sections `(x:)` or `(20*)`, and here `[1..]` or `[a..b]`. And I still do write `[1..10]` myself. But I think the current behaviour is the "correct" one.

chreekat commented

2018-01-16 04:23:40 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Thanks for taking the time to list your rationale so clearly! My "issue" is resolved.

codygman commented

2020-10-30 20:51:00 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

FWIW our brittany update just changed [0..5] to [0 .. 5] and to throw my opinion out there:

I dislike it.

I imagine that doesn't mean a lot, but I felt compelled enough to track down this relevant issue and comment this 😅

FWIW our brittany update just changed `[0..5]` to `[0 .. 5]` and to throw my opinion out there: I dislike it. I imagine that doesn't mean a lot, but I felt compelled enough to track down this relevant issue and comment this :sweat_smile:

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Milestone

No project

No Assignees

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: hexagoxel/brittany#104

Unsatisfying arithmetic sequences e.g. [0 .. n - 1] #104

Unsatisfying arithmetic sequences e.g. `[0 .. n - 1]` #104