Revisit defaults for rules

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

operator_spaces and no_space: we might want more operators on these ones...

Other rules: are all the ones we want as defaults in the rulesets? (should we add this info to the Wiki, that certain rules aren't executed by default?)

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

I've revisited elvis_project and found nothing to change.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

I've revisited elvis_text_style and found nothing to change.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

Proposals/stuff to discuss:

Rules	Discussion
macro_names	The default regex is [A-Z][A-Z_0-9]+. Should we propose something that's closer to what's being discussed for atom_naming_convention, e.g. ^[A-Z]+(_[A-Z0-9]+)*$?
operator_spaces	Should ! have white space to left/right? And what about ;? And {/}?
no_space	Should . be part of the list (no space to left)? And what about ; (same - no space to left)? And : (on both sides)? What about { (this is probably tricky to get right!); And what about [/]? And #? And ?? And -?
function_naming_convention	Should we propose something that's closer to what's being discussed for atom_naming_convention, e.g. ^[a-z]+(_[a-z0-9]+)*$?
module_naming_convention	Should we propose something that's closer to what's being discussed for atom_naming_convention, e.g. ^[a-z]+(_[a-z0-9]+)*(_SUITE)?$?
no_debug_call	Should we add io:put_chars/1,2?

[elbrujohalcon]

My opinions…

Rules	Discussion	Brujo's take
macro_names	The default regex is [A-Z][A-Z_0-9]+. Should we propose something that's closer to what's being discussed for atom_naming_convention, e.g. ^[A-Z]+(_[A-Z0-9]+)*$?	Yes!
operator_spaces	Should ! have white space to left/right? And what about ;? And {/}?	! and / - Yes (L and R); ; - Depends if the author is using comma-first or comma-last… I would not make a rule about it, like we don't have a rule about ,; { and } - Same issue, it depends a lot on how the author wants to format its code, I would force any spacing on them
no_space	Should . be part of the list (no space to left)? And what about ; (same - no space to left)? And : (on both sides)? What about { (this is probably tricky to get right!); And what about [/]? And #? And ?? And -?	., ;, {, [ and ] - Depends on formatting, as I said above. : (as long as we can differentiate it from ::) - yeah… I would avoid spaces around it. # and ? - does it even compile if they have a space to the right? (if so, yeah… they should not have a space after them). -… Don't we have a default to add spaces to both sides of it in the previous rule?
function_naming_convention	Should we propose something that's closer to what's being discussed for atom_naming_convention, e.g. ^[a-z]+(_[a-z0-9]+)*$?	Yes
module_naming_convention	Should we propose something that's closer to what's being discussed for atom_naming_convention, e.g. ^[a-z]+(_[a-z0-9]+)*(_SUITE)?$?	Yes
no_debug_call	Should we add io:put_chars/1,2?	Yeah, why not?

So, my proposed changes would be:

Rules	Proposal
macro_names	Adjust the default regex to something like ^[A-Z]+(_[A-Z0-9]+)*$?
operator_spaces	Add ! and / (L and R)
no_space	Add : (no L nor R), as long as we can differentiate it from ::. Add # and ? (No space to the right), as long as the code compiles with spaces
function_naming_convention	Adjust the default regex to something like ^[a-z]+(_[a-z0-9]+)*$?
module_naming_convention	Adjust the default regex to something like ^[a-z]+(_[a-z0-9]+)*(_SUITE)?$?
no_debug_call	Add io:put_chars/1,2

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

• macro_names: Ok
• operator_spaces: Ok
• no_space: Ok, but I don't see where . would ever be formatted by itself (?)
• function_naming_convention: should it be ^[a-z](_?[a-z0-9]+)*$ instead? What's the difference between what we want here and for an atom name? Edit: I'll push this one as an initial proposal. I wanna check how current code/tests react.
• module_naming_convention: whatever we decide on before (function_naming_convention) should be the same with (_SUITE)?$ at the end, correct? Edit: I'll push this one as an initial proposal. I wanna check how current code/tests react.
• no_debug_call: Ok

[elbrujohalcon]

• no_space: here…

some_fun() ->
      some:function()
    , some:other_function()
    , …
    .

A very strict form of comma-first.

• function_naming_convention: Yeah, it's the same atom_naming_convention, but atom_naming_convention allows for _SUITE at the end. That's all.
• module_naming_convention: Yeah, it's the same as function_naming_convention, but atom_naming_convention allows for _SUITE at the end. That's all.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

module_naming_convention: Yeah, it's the same as function_naming_convention, but atom_naming_convention allows for _SUITE at the end. That's all.

It also allows for _SUITE, which is effectively the name of CT suites, but I got what you mean.