Nic Ferrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Aaron M. Renn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > If so, would it also be okay to remove the stream classes and make > > > them inner classes (of PlainSocketImpl). That should clear them off > > > the merge list. > > > > As they aren't public classes, I don't think this is necessary. But > > if you really want to, I would not object. (I personally don't care much > > for inner classes all that much). > > > > I believe all of the easy parts of java.net are already merged. What > > remains is the native stuff, including the corresponding Java classes > > and URL's. I think. > > One other question on this. > > Aaron wrote the classes with the GNU style for indentation applied to methods. The > current interpretation of the style guide (at least on the gcj > project) is to apply the indentation to the whole class. > > This means that, strictly, some of the code in java.net should be > re-formatted. > > I'm quite happy to submit an indentation patch before I do anything > else... should I?
You should keep the reformatting separate from a code change if at all possible just so it is more clear in looking at CVS with diff/logs. Is there a mode in standard GNU indent which meets the right formatting criteria for Java code and GNU standards? Brian -- Brian Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
