[Mono-list] Style

[Christian Meyer]

Am Sam, 2002-03-02 um 16.16 schrieb Gaurav Vaish:
> : Well, you don't need to indent namespace and class declarations.
> 
>     The whole purpose of indentation will be lost! It not only beautifies the
> code but almost helps one to detect any errors in braces-matching, and unless
> you have intelligent SharpDevelop, emacs etc, you will be lost.

I agree. Currently I'm using the following indentation:

namespace mono.blabla
{

class public MyClass : MonoClass {

	public string gimmeString() {
		return "MONO";
	}
}

}

As you can see, this looks rather ugly. I vote for indentation of class
declerations.

>     Though the choice may be personal, I prefer the following:
>     * Tab instead of a whitespace. If I am forced to use whitespace -- it will
> be width 4.

Personally, I hate tabs. They are looking quite ugly in vi(m). I don't
want to switch to emacs, because I think it sucks *flamewar* ;)
I'm currently using whitespaces with width=4.

>     * Indentation with opening braces on a new line, like the one given towards
> the end.
>     * So, where there are any '{' / '}' brace in a line, there are only braces.

I hope I did understand correctly:
class Test
{
	blabla...
}

I don't like that. Before I went to university I thought this would be
the ultimate coding style. When I learned JAVA, I immediately switched
to:
class Test {
	blabla...
}

It somehow looks better. AFAIK, the first style is used for C/C++ code
(I never saw different C/C++ style).

>     * Even if there is only one statement to be executed in if-else, put them in
> braces, like one shown below.
>         -> This gives liquidity for later use, where you may like to put some
> stuff. Everytime, you do, you will not have to bother about adding / deleting
> those braces.

I fully agree!

> [ Thank God, one-line methods have to be written within braces, or else think
> about the situation it would have been otherwise And the same thing with get /
> set ].
> 
> namespace Vaish.Gaurav.Namespace
> {
>     public class GauravVaish
>     {
>         public int Property1
>         {
>             get
>             {
>                 if(someCheck())
>                 {
>                     return 0;
>                 } else
>                 {
>                     return 1;
>                 }
>             }
>         }
>     }
> }

>:)
My version:

namespace mono.test
{
    public class Test {

 	public void doNothing() {
            return;
	}

	public int InstStuff {
	    get {
		if (somethingRocks()) {
		    return 1;
		} 
		else {
		    return 0;
		}
	    }
	    set {
		....
	    }
	}
    }
}

I'm always adding a blank line between the class definition and the
method defition.
I would agree about:
get
{
	blabla
}

In your case the 'else case' style isn't very good IMO.

Any suggestions, ideas?!
Greetings
Christian