Make operator_usage_whitespace Rule Configurable

[ghost]

It would be nice to make operator_usage_whitespace rule configurable so that you can include or exclude specific operators.

As an example, I prefer to vertically align my assignments and therefore would like to exclude the = operator. But I would like to keep all of my arithmetic nicely spaced and continue to be linted.

[peterprokop]

We really need this for exactly the same reason (= operator)

[jpsim]

I'd rather just see SwiftLint support vertically aligning operators instead.

[cennydavidsson]

I would like to config so it accepts the formatting that can be found in Clean Code by Uncle Bob about precedence of operators.

Another use for white space is to accentuate the precedence of operators.

public class Quadratic {
  private static double determinant(double a, double b, double c) { 
    return b*b - 4*a*c;
  } 
}

Notice how nicely the equations read. The factors have no white space between them because they are high precedence. The terms are separated by white space because addi- tion and subtraction are lower precedence.

[jpsim]

@cennydavidsson I agree that case reads more nicely than a single spaces. What about this case can we detect and make an exception for, without also losing some of the valuable violations that the rule would currently catch?

For example, longer variable names would reduce the readability of that code:

return b*b - 4*a*c
// vs
return variableB*variableB - 4*variableA*variableC

[cennydavidsson]

@jpsim I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.

I would like to configure the rule to have no whitespace for operators * and / basically. If we can do this then this rule can be more flexible. I don't see any downside with this feature as it is just additive.

operator_usage_whitespace:
  no_white_space: 
    - "*"
    - "/"

[jpsim]

I was saying that return variableB*variableB - 4*variableA*variableC becomes less readable, so I'm asking what heuristics are you suggesting we apply so that avoid cases like these? Or are you saying that it would be up to the user to configure the rule based on their preferences regardless of if it applies well in all cases?

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any recent activity. Please comment to prevent this issue from being closed. Thank you for your contributions!