Apptech wrote:
> The logical implication of your riposte is that a tool should prevent
> you doing anything, no matter how useful it may be,

Clearly I didn't say that.  You are generalizing from a specific example.
There is a ballance between how useful it would be to violate the rules
versus the advantage of knowing all code is guaranteed to follow them.

This particular question was about indenting code.  I see very little value
in being allowed to not indent code properly, and a lot of advantage in
knowing that all code is guaranteed to be indented properly.

> if what you do is
> in any way unnacceptable in finished code.

I don't understand this distinction between "finished" code and something
else.  I don't know about you, but I write my one off test programs in the
same style as any other code.

> As an avowed disliker of 'clickety click'
> I'd have thought (and would hope) that you'd not only tolerate but
> desire at least some engineering latititude in your programming
> enviroments.

Your analogy is really bad.  Clickety-click refers to the user interface,
not the end product produced with that or any other interface.  I don't care
what editor, for example, you use to create code since only the resulting
code itself matters.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist