> Am 26.01.2017 um 05:29 schrieb L A Walsh <[email protected]>: > > > In programs that take tabstops, as an alternative to a tabsize, I've always > seen tabs beyond the end of the list taken as equal to the highest tab-stop > difference. So for a tabsize=8, a tabset of 1,9 would be equivalent -- with > tabs above "9" being "9-1" or every 8th column above 9. > > Otherwise you have no way of expression all tabs on a line that stretches out > to > "???" 160? 240? what? other than to enumerate tabstops to infinity. > > If they want to limit tabstops above the last to size "1", they can use > something like 1,9,10. How else can one specify tabs beyond the last > for a size other than "1"? > > Could this be changed/fixed?
For now the behavior is like specified on the info page: "[…] and replace any tabs beyond the last tab stop given with single spaces." To avoid that this gets broken, I would suggest to use a modified syntax like 1,9,30,34,/4 for using a width of 4 beyond 34. This could even be expanded to: -t 2/4,120,4/5,/9 Two times a width of 4, a fixed 120, four times a width of 5 and all remaining have a width of 9 (could also be */9 instead of /9). While we are on this: expand -t 5,15,25,35 file expand -t 5,15,25,,,,35 file are AFAICS both the same. I would expect the second to behave different (using a space for the three tabs which have no value). -- Reuti
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
