New rule? ; and , replaced with orelse and andalso

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

Again, only for the strict ruleset, but these seem like good candidates for a rule. Again, where they fit, we have a mechanism to make these optional, so...

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

Or, optionally (or even another rule), always prefer , and ; in guards 😄 The goal of both is to enforce consistency.

[elbrujohalcon]

I guess the rule can be like the one for behaviour/behavior or the one for any()/term()…
In other words it can force consistency, but allow the user to define what they prefer to use.
The configuration may be…

#{
    guards := punctuation | words,  % punctuation :: , or ; // words :: andalso or orelse
    expressions := punctuation | words | same, % same :: whatever guards uses
}

[elbrujohalcon]

oh, you're right… there is no "guards" or "expressions"… it's just "guards"… So, the config would be:

#{preferred_syntax := punctuation | words}

…and we can fight to the death (or throw a coin) to decide which one is the default.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

I'm Ok with using punctuation as the default; and if you say otherwise I'm also Ok. I don't wanna fight to the death today 😄 If people don't like it they can disable the rule, or update the default.

[elbrujohalcon]

I really have no preference… punctuation is prettier while there is only one (i.e., a ; b ; c) but not when there are many different ones (i.e. a ; b , c ; d , e). In that case, words are clearer. And sometimes (as you saw in the other comment thread) I use both in combination to convey some meaning. So, in a nutshell, I should not be the one deciding what the default should be.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

I flipped a coin. It was tails, so punctuation it is.

[elbrujohalcon]

I'm 100% OK with that, and now I'm ready to defend that standard to ruin and the world's ending!!!

[elbrujohalcon]

And this one, I would not object to put in erl_files directly. The other rules I mention are there, as well.

[paulo-ferraz-oliveira]

#462