Vertical whitespace

[jspahrsummers]

This is strictly an aesthetic thing, but I generally find more vertical whitespace to aid readability, and after a control structure is one of the most effective places to do it.

[jspahrsummers]

This line was just removed to contrast with the blank line below, not because it couldn't be here.

[alanjrogers]

I'm pretty this is just articulating what we're all doing already, but I'll wait for a 👍 from @dannygreg and @joshaber before merging this.

[dannygreg]

I agree with this use of whitespace, but I'm not sure it really belongs in the guidelines. For me, it's not really a hard and fast rule, how you want to shape code like this. It is dealed with on a case by case basis.

[jspahrsummers]

Yeah, that's fair enough. What I really want is:

1. More liberal use of vertical whitespace.
2. Some objective guideline to point to for PRs on our OSS repos, rather than just saying "this needs more whitespace."

Maybe there's some better way to encapsulate that, or maybe a guideline isn't actually necessary.

[joshaber]

I'm 👍 on the style but I don't feel strongly as to whether it belongs in the conventions. Whatevs.

[alanjrogers]

Perhaps we should just soften the language a little bit? Something like

We prefer a liberal use of vertical whitespace, for example, try to leave a blank line after a multi-line control structure if it's followed by another statement.

[jspahrsummers]

@alanjrogers I like the general thrust of that. I riffed on it a little bit to create a more general rule – what do you guys think of this?

[alanjrogers]

👍 from me.

:general: and :thrust: need emoji.

[dannygreg]

👍 to the thrust change.

chortle