From: Andreas Leitgeb on
Davy <zhushenli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I notice "Naturally Nagelfar expects the coding style of its author so
> if you do things differently, you may get false errors. "
>
> Can you recommend the coding style used by Nagelfar?

I am just a happy every-once-in-a-while user of nagelfar,
and I can recommend the coding style used by Nagelfar.

I mean, I had no need to reformat any substantial part of
my checked code just to hush up nagelfar-warnings.

Just a few things, I did change in my sources for nagelfar:
use "else" keyword in "if"-statements (this warning
could also be separately turned off - I favoured
taking the advice of adding some "else"s)
complete subcommands: e.g. "info exist ..." -> "info exists ..."
Also could be hushed up in nagelfar, but I rather
took nagelfar's advice.
added ##nagelfar-comments for some procedures that take
semantically-special arguments (e.g. varnames) to help
nagelfar know, that e.g. the first argument for some proc
will be a varname rather than an inadvertent bareword.

PS: (PostScriptum, but also addressed to Peter Spjuth :-)
lately I failed getting nagelfar to accept version 8.5 stuff
(which I think to remember worked previously) - I definitely
start nagelfar.tcl with tclsh8.5) e.g.: {expand}.. and lassign

From: Robert Hicks on

Davy wrote:
> Svenn Bjerkem wrote:
<snip>
>
> PS, IMHO, I like Perl more than Tcl :)
>

I like some things in Perl and some things in Tcl. Tcl has much better
OO frameworks (I love Snit) but Perl has the DBI and CPAN. Those 2 keep
me using Perl. Though not CPAN so much. I actully think packages are
more simple in Tcl than in Perl (but that might be because I am an end
user and not a maintainer).

The Tcl community is by far the nicest and most informative of all the
ones I have participated in (i.e. Python, Ruby, Perl). That is a big
plus.

Robert

From: Michael Schlenker on
Robert Hicks schrieb:
> Davy wrote:
>> Svenn Bjerkem wrote:
> <snip>
>> PS, IMHO, I like Perl more than Tcl :)
>>
>
> I like some things in Perl and some things in Tcl. Tcl has much better
> OO frameworks (I love Snit) but Perl has the DBI and CPAN. Those 2 keep
> me using Perl. Though not CPAN so much. I actully think packages are
> more simple in Tcl than in Perl (but that might be because I am an end
> user and not a maintainer).

For something like DBI take a look at the things listed here:
http://wiki.tcl.tk/14972

Michael
From: Robert Hicks on

Michael Schlenker wrote:
> Robert Hicks schrieb:
> > Davy wrote:
> >> Svenn Bjerkem wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> PS, IMHO, I like Perl more than Tcl :)
> >>
> >
> > I like some things in Perl and some things in Tcl. Tcl has much better
> > OO frameworks (I love Snit) but Perl has the DBI and CPAN. Those 2 keep
> > me using Perl. Though not CPAN so much. I actully think packages are
> > more simple in Tcl than in Perl (but that might be because I am an end
> > user and not a maintainer).
>
> For something like DBI take a look at the things listed here:
> http://wiki.tcl.tk/14972
>
> Michael

Oh, I know all about that. : )

"nstcl" is the closest probably. I haven't used it yet but I am
thinking about it.

Luckily I use Oracle at work so I can use Oratcl. Todd is a great help.

:Robert

From: Peter Spjuth on
Davy wrote:
> I notice "Naturally Nagelfar expects the coding style of its author so
> if you do things differently, you may get false errors. "
>
> Can you recommend the coding style used by Nagelfar?

I recommend reading http://wiki.tcl.tk/708.
I personally don't follow it all but it's a start.

Some style things that are checked are:

Indentation, or rather close brace alignment to opening statement.

Braced expressions. Since it is generally a really good idea to brace
your exprs.

Subcommands and options should not be abbreviated. If you do you run
the risk of failure if new options are added.

Enforce "else", as recommended by the guidelines.

/Peter