From: A E Lawrence Newsgroups: comp.editors,comp.sys.transputer Subject: Re: Folding editors Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 21:59:10 +0000 Organization: Not much Message-Id: <365737AE.63727C06@oucs.ox.ac.uk> References: <36374B57.168B9492@pact.srf.ac.uk> <71aj0c$oc$1@fangorn.moria.de> <6r1znq7264.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <3639BEFD.2CC25E3C@esgem.com> <6r4ssm59ay.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <6rhfwi4ee6.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <363EEB84.5CAD538B@roke.co.uk> <6rvhkw20nk.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <364CBB49.ABE8624B@oucs.ox.ac.uk> <6r90hb7vgg.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Xref: ukc comp.editors:32335 comp.sys.transputer:8939 Iain A F Fleming wrote: > > The entity calling itself A E Lawrence wrote: > > > > Iain A F Fleming wrote: > > > > > > When bereft of folds, such functions are inscrutable. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > This surely is *exactly* the point. No-one should view the text without > > a full folding editor. If a program is well structured and documented > > by virtue of its folded structure, why should there be an objection per > > se to "loops within loops within conditionals". > > Ridiculously high complexity metrics, non-ameanble to full coverage testing, > hindering of compiler optimistion. > > > The folding may well make this comprehensible, efficient, and provably > > correct. > > In the presnece of "loops within loops within conditionals"? Unlikely. Of course, I wasn't advocating such a style: I did say disciplined! And the compiler technology may well impose other constraints when performance is crucial: of course. Perhaps when formal proof and refinment techniques are more mature, we won't need any "testing"? Of software. Hardware is physics: a different matter :-) Adrian -- Dr A E Lawrence (from home)