replace all the rules with a map that only contains the rule itself

[AndreaCrotti]

With this simple mechanical change (done simply with the power of Emacs query-replace-regexp and a few manual tweaks), all the tests are still passing, and it's a starting point to extend the rules to have a more rich structure, as discussed in
#175

[AndreaCrotti]

Just FYI I didn't actually touch what was in (comment forms, but that could also be ported if it makes sense.

And probably the defrules macro itself can be definitively cleaned up a bit, but let me know if you are happy with this approach first.
Thanks

[danielcompton]

Hey, I'd probably prefer to see the whole change for #175 in one PR, rather than changing all the rules partway through. This is a good start for that though.

[AndreaCrotti]

Ah I see, so you mean enumerating all the rules in one go?

I just thought it would be better to get this in first because any other change would conflict since I'm basically touching every rule.
So merging this first would make it a bit easier to solve possible conflicts later on, and this was just a mechanical change so very easy to review..

And by the way should I then not touch the ryles in (comment) right?
Thanks

[danielcompton]

Ah I see, so you mean enumerating all the rules in one go?

Sorry, I mean I'd rather see one patch set for #175, rather than changing the defrules macro early. I don't think there are any major refactors planned which would cause any merge conflicts with what you're working on.

And by the way should I then not touch the ryles in (comment) right?

Yep

[AndreaCrotti]

Sorry I don't get how I can enumerate all the rules without actually changing the defrules macro..

The defrules macro stops working if I change the structure of the rules in any way right?

And by the way I had another thought, since we are talking about restructuring the rules, it would be probably even better to make it even more explicit.

So instead of this:

{:rule [(when-not (not ?x) . ?y) (when ?x . ?y)]...}

we could have this:

{:from (when-not (not ?x) . ?y)
 :to (when ?x . ?y)...}

Specially for some long rules this would make it even easier to understand.
What do you think?

[danielcompton]

Hey, what I'm saying is, I don't want to merge a partial PR towards #175, when you provide a PR, provide all of it in one patch, i.e. the changes to the rules syntax, along with the code to allow enumerating rules.

[AndreaCrotti]

Sorry for the delay but now finally I work with Clojure and use Kibit so I would definitively like to get this forward..

However there are 88 rules and I haven't really written any of them, so would like to know what is needed for this PR to be merged.
At the moment the only change is to make the definition a map with :rule so that we can more easily add :id and so on and so forth.

The defrules macro has also changed according to that.
But did you want me to add :id, and :name/description to every rule as well in the same PR?

Or the changes about enumerating should be in lein-kibit instead?
And what should be the way to configure that?
Something like a configuration file to exclude unwanted things?
http://pep8.readthedocs.io/en/release-1.7.x/intro.html#configuration

[NoahTheDuke]

Closing this PR in light of kibit entering maintenance status. (See this comment for further details.)