From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Nov 25 12:54:44 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7791737B401 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:54:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C22643ED4 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:54:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([12.242.158.67]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53) with ESMTP id <20021125205442053004c07re>; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 20:54:42 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gAPKt5d8079930 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:55:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.6/8.12.5/Submit) id gAPKsuQG079925; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:54:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@attbi.com) X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: jojo set sender to swear@attbi.com using -f To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Style(9) question References: <20021122193040.GA23078@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20021122214405.GA11011@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <8gof8g83w4.f8g@localhost.localdomain> <20021124090603.GA3172@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20021124100846.GC51850@raggedclown.net> From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: 25 Nov 2002 12:54:56 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20021124100846.GC51850@raggedclown.net> Message-ID: Lines: 15 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Cliff Sarginson writes: > [snip] This basically meant everyone ignored them (I think actually > that nobody read them). More common, from my experience, is good-old-boy, wink-of-the-eye variable enforcement of standards, so that standards are learned and followed best by the persons who recieve the most frequent and severe sanctions for violations. (And to a lesser degree, by those with the least pressure to produce working code.) The system obviously has some practical merit, but it often results in a lot of unhappy programmers. This is one reason for very strict enforcement of standards -- even automated systems -- so that favoritism doesn't rear it's ugly head. Of course, it tends to slow down and ire the most productive coders. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message