On 2002.11.10, Tom Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I wonder why emacs and Xemacs use tabs at all, given the advice of most > coding standards on using spaces.
Funny, most of the time I prefer using hard tabs so that the display of the code is left to the individual's preference, not the author's preference. If someone writes code using hard tabs and likes their tabbing at 3 spaces, they simply instruct their editor to indent it three spaces. If I prefer 2, 4, or 8, I can tell my editor to show me the code the way I like when I'm working with the code. A good coding standard might prescribe the recommended indentation level, but a coding standard that recommends using soft tabs (real spaces) instead of hard tabs ... I'd question the wisdom of it. ;-) If I'm feeling really annoying, I'll stick a comment line in my code somewhere with "vim: ts=4 sw=4 noet" if I want to insist on how the code should be displayed. But, that's not playing nice ... ;-) On 2002.11.10, Jerry Asher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I love emacs. Long live emacs. I hate emacs though. What I hate is that from > the behavior I've seen, apparently at MIT it's considered that a fast way > for a frosh to get noticed by Richard Stallman is to change a well > known API, and then to change all keybindings to make use of the new > paradigm. I swear, every two years all my emacs customizations break. > Gratuitously. A good portion of programming speed comes from muscle memory of the environment, so that the brain is free to think about the code at hand, not how to key it in. As you say, this is why emacs sucks and vi still rules. ;-) -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Panoptic Computer Network web: http://www.panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)
