I don't fully get the point. Coding standards are coding standards.
Well, that's just it. Coding standards in the real world tend to be coding guidelines. For good reason. Some formatting issues (ironically often called style guidelines) are hard and fast rules: do/don't cuddle elses, indents are X spaces, do/don't use tabs, etc.† But you have to have some flexibility when addressing things that aren't just cosmetic. Some coding standards, probably the better ones, are explicit about that. The goal is always to efficiently write efficient, robust, and maintainable code. It's pretty widely recognized that following arbitrary constraints just for the sake of following them doesn't get you there. Coding standards require intelligent application.
Forgive me for saying so, but you seem overly caught up in the "rules". Rigor is good when you are, say, implementing a protocol specification. But you can't so easily apply rigor to the art of programming itself. Coding standards sometimes must be bent so they should be flexible. If they aren't they'll be broken outright.
† Using tools to aid with these issues is a fine strategy, by the way. I'm a strong advocate of using perltidy, for instance.
In reply to Re^7: On being 'critical'
by sauoq
in thread On being 'critical'
by herby1620
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |