[elm-discuss] elm-format did something change?

['Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss]

I recently did a full upgrade and re-installed my whole system, including
elm, atom and elm-format. I notice now that when I save files elm-format is
giving a huge diff compared with what I had before, particularly around
comments. A little example:

{-|
Username and password based login credentials.
-}

Changes to:

{-| Username and password based login credentials.
-}

Looking at the release notes, this is all
expected. https://github.com/avh4/elm-format/releases

I am just wondering if I should update all public repositories that I
maintain to match the latest version of elm-format? Otherwise we have to
keep turning off elm-format-on-save to make nice diffs.

It also strikes me that working on multiple branches and upgrading them
could also run into problems and potentially lose the ability to cleanly
merge patches between branches. elm-format is awesome but big whitespace
only diffs on mature codebases with multiple work streams are not.

['Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss]

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss
I recently did a full upgrade and re-installed my whole system, including
elm, atom and elm-format. I notice now that when I save files elm-format is
giving a huge diff compared with what I had before, particularly around
comments.

Bugger. Latest (non-experimental) version also introduces compile errors...

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss
elm-make

Success! Compiled 11 modules.

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss
elm-format src/

...

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss
elm-make

-- DOCUMENTATION ERROR ------------------------------ ./src/TypedSvg/
Filters.elm



The following exports do not appear in your module documentation: blend
colorMatrix componentTransfer composite convolveMatrix diffuseLighting
displacementMap distantLight flood funcA funcB funcG funcR gaussianBlur
image
merge mergeNode morphology offset pointLight specularLighting spotLight tile
turbulence


3|>{-| SVG Filter Elements
4|>
5|> Typical usage:
6|>
7|> import TypedSvg.Filters as Fe
8|> import TypedSvg.Filters.Attributes exposing (..)
9|>
10|> Fe.filter []
11|> [ Fe.blend [in InSourceGraphic, in2 InFillPaint, mode
ModeMultiply] []
12|> ]
13|>
14|>@docs blend, colorMatrix, componentTransfer, composite,
15|>convolveMatrix, diffuseLighting, displacementMap, flood, funcA,
16|>funcB, funcG, funcR, gaussianBlur, image, merge, mergeNode,
17|>morphology, offset, specularLighting, tile, turbulence
18|>
19|>
20|># Light source elements
21|>
22|>@docs distantLight, pointLight, spotLight
23|>
24|>-}

['Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss]

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss
I recently did a full upgrade and re-installed my whole system, including
elm, atom and elm-format. I notice now that when I save files elm-format is
giving a huge diff compared with what I had before, particularly around
comments.

Bugger. Latest (non-experimental) version also introduces compile errors...

Ok, was easy enough to fix. Just need to make sure that everything after a
@docs is on one line, or use multiple @docs if multiple lines are needed.

['Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss]

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss
I am just wondering if I should update all public repositories that I
maintain to match the latest version of elm-format? Otherwise we have to
keep turning off elm-format-on-save to make nice diffs.

I suppose the question is, is there a consensus on which version is
considered to be the most 'definitive' for 0.18 code?

Given that that whole thing is pre 1.0 and should be considered alpha, does
it really make sense at this stage to distinguish between 'exp'erimental
and alpha releases? That is, should I just go with 0.7.0-exp as the
canonical formatter? Or do people think that it is better to go with
0.6.1-alpha?

[Francesco Orsenigo]

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss
I suppose the question is, is there a consensus on which version is
considered to be the most 'definitive' for 0.18 code?

The last one.
Other than that, or what you consider "last" there is no consensus and it's
fine.
In fact, you don't even have to use elm-format at all or feel pressured to
update your old code.
Readability will be very similar regardless, and in the end that's what
matters.

['Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss]

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss
I suppose the question is, is there a consensus on which version is

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss
considered to be the most 'definitive' for 0.18 code?

The last one.
Other than that, or what you consider "last" there is no consensus and
it's fine.
In fact, you don't even have to use elm-format at all or feel pressured to
update your old code.
Readability will be very similar regardless, and in the end that's what
matters.

I think a 'canonical' format for source code is really helpful when working
in teams. It basically removes wasting time on any debate about it (curly
braces at end of line or on new line? remember that that from C/C++/Java
days...). Once established it helps to keep patches clean and easy to work
with.

[Aaron VonderHaar]

As I get closer to the 1.0 release, I've been trying to figure out how we
can still get user feedback for future format changes. So the plan is to
have -exp releases that have features that may change or be removed before
the next release. I was trying that plan out with 0.7.0-exp to see how it
worked. My thought was that people with less tolerance for formatting
changes and back-and-forth will want to stick to the stable releases, and
those that are able to try out new features can use the -exp version.

However, for 0.7.0-exp specifically, all 4 of the experimental features
will be graduating to the next normal release, and I have started working
on a few remaining bugs before the 0.7.1 release (which will not be -exp).


On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:40 AM, 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss <

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss

Post by 'Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss
I am just wondering if I should update all public repositories that I
maintain to match the latest version of elm-format? Otherwise we have to
keep turning off elm-format-on-save to make nice diffs.

I suppose the question is, is there a consensus on which version is
considered to be the most 'definitive' for 0.18 code?
Given that that whole thing is pre 1.0 and should be considered alpha,
does it really make sense at this stage to distinguish between
'exp'erimental and alpha releases? That is, should I just go with 0.7.0-exp
as the canonical formatter? Or do people think that it is better to go with
0.6.1-alpha?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Elm Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

['Rupert Smith' via Elm Discuss]

Post by Aaron VonderHaar
As I get closer to the 1.0 release, I've been trying to figure out how we
can still get user feedback for future format changes. So the plan is to
have -exp releases that have features that may change or be removed before
the next release. I was trying that plan out with 0.7.0-exp to see how it
worked. My thought was that people with less tolerance for formatting
changes and back-and-forth will want to stick to the stable releases, and
those that are able to try out new features can use the -exp version.

I think its a good idea, and once you get to 1.0 it will really start to
make sense.