Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Use vertical space more liberally in some scrutinizer messages

[Evan Hanson]

Hi folks,

I've just pushed most of these patches, with signoffs, to a branch
called "scrutiny-message-formatting", and I think we should merge it.

I actually reviewed all of these some time ago, and while there are
still some changes and additions I'd like to include, I haven't had time
to continue working on it for several months and don't want to block all
this good work (and it is good work!) from going in.

I have made some small changes to the patches, mostly cosmetic changes
to message wording, indentation, parameter names and the like. I also
added two small commits and simplified the commit messages to a degree
that made sense to me. I've also omitted two of the patches where I
think we should use a different approach:

  * Patch 0012 - I don't think the name provides much benefit, and in
    any case the way it was printed (with parens) was visually
    confusing. Better to use "; <name>" or the like, later.

  * Patch 0017 - I think the effect of this patch is important, but I
    still feel that mapping back to the user-specified names is better
    than regex-based number stripping, to avoid munging tvs that really
    do include a number.

Anyway, the best way to understand the effect of this patch set is
probably not to go through each patch individually (I've already done
that, so you don't have to!) but rather to have a look at the "expected"
files for the scrutiny tests to see what the resulting output looks
like. Compare them to what we have currently and I think you'll see a
nice improvement.

Cheers,

Evan