Open brace placement: always on the same line?

[tbu]

These rules do indeed not contradict each other and may well be consistent.

I think I see a problem with that consistency here – namely, with a line limit like 99 character and line continuations rules that have >4 indent, we can pretty quickly get to the right border.

I’ve hit that case a few times with my code, and this is why I read this proposal and thought it was pretty good, as it does IMO not sacrify readability, keeps shortness for the common case and IMO even makes the many parameters block more readable.

[tbu]

@lilyball

Consistency is king when it comes to style rules. It enforces simplicity, so you never have to think about when to apply one style and when to apply another, and it ensures everyone's expectations for reading and writing code are the same.

I think I disagree here. I wouldn't sacrifice what is readability to me, for consistency.

(The PEP8 quote about consistency comes to my mind when reading that we should pursue consistency for the sake of it.)

[lilyball]

@tbu

I think I see a problem with that consistency here – namely, with a line limit like 99 character and line continuations rules that have >4 indent, we can pretty quickly get to the right border.

The move towards RAII in Rust was primarily motivated by a desire to get rid of rightward drift. This is also one of the primary motivating factors of my if-let RFC. No matter what the style rules are, rightward drift is generally considered bad and should be avoided when possible.

Also, I don't see what rightward drift has to do with the placement of the open brace.

[bluss]

I think it was also that closures didn’t compile as fast or well as hoped, and made coding harder by involving borrowing into closures for scoping a lot more.