Documentation improvement suggestions
Hey there!
I just came across the project (which looks pretty cool, btw) and I have a couple of small suggestions to improve the docs:
- Might be a good idea to publish the docs folder to a service like ReadTheDocs. This requires almost no work from you, just adding a configuration file for the service. I didn't notice the doc files originally and I thought the README was a bit short on details.
- I think it'd be great if there's some rationale for rewriting cljfmt (which I've been using for a while), as it's not very clear what exactly are the advantages of cljstyle
- I think it's a good idea to indicate where are the defaults derived from. I'm hoping that's the community style guide, but I couldn't find any indication of this in the docs.
Thanks for the great project! 🙇
Hi bbatsov, thanks! Publishing would be neat - there are links from the relevant README sections, but maybe they're not discoverable enough.
I'll put the rationale in a doc, but there were a couple of things I wanted when I first forked cljfmt:
- A better way to specify configuration local to certain bits of code.
- Namespace-matched and pattern-matched indent rules.
- Enforced line-breaks for some function, var, and type forms.
- Canonical
nsrewriting. - A stand-alone binary tool.
The defaults are indeed mostly from the community style guide, with the main exception being the default two-space indent. That's configurable back to one space for those who want it, but it never really made sense to me.
Sounds good to me!
The defaults are indeed mostly from the community style guide, with the main exception being the default two-space indent. That's configurable back to one space for those who want it, but it never really made sense to me.
I know this is probably the most controversial topic when it comes to code layout, but I was doing Lisp(s) way before Clojure, so I got used to this a long time ago. :-) As a bonus - it makes it really easy to spot some macro that operates on a body of code and function calls with multi-line arguments. Anyways, I understand your point.