The bottom line is: if the company chooses some coding standards, you should adhere to them as much as possible. If you disagree with them, discuss them and try to have them changed, but don't advocate the right to bend them at your will: others may count on the fact that you're following them.

I think the core issue we are addressing can be summed up with the question "what makes coding standards good?"

My pragmatic, I think, outlook is that if the rules are too rigid, you can count ont them being cleverly circumvented when a reason to do so presents itself. (As in the OP.) If, on the other hand, they are flexible then they won't have to be circumvented at all.

It seems your outlook is that, regardless of how rigid they are, the coding standards should be followed. And not just their letter, but their intent. Petition for change is fine but, short of that, if the coding standard in place requires you to jump hoops then that's exactly what you should do.

Interesting. I think it might just boil down to personality. Some, like yourself, will follow both the coding standard itself and the intent of its author regardless of how doing so adds complexity to your task. Some, like me, will happily follow the coding standard itself but, when presented with a situation that is poorly addressed by the coding standard, I'll happily circumvent it if doing so enables me to more efficiently solve the real issue at hand.

The reason I think my outlook is pragmatic is that people like me exist. If a coding standard isn't written with the understanding that we exist, it will be less than optimal. And I suggest that any coding standard that is so rigid that it can actually be checked by software fails to take my existence into account. :-)

I guess you could argue that I should change. Maybe I should. But even if I do, there are a lot of people like me. And it just isn't pragmatic to expect them all to change. So, instead of changing, I think I'll just advocate better coding standards.