On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 10/17/2011 12:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >>> >>> Thus clearly the documentation is wrong ;) >> >> ;-) >> Not necessarily. Paolo does not say why that line was added. >> I don't remember adding that line to change the default. > > Indeed, as far as I can see, you added that line while *preserving* the > existing behavior and preparing the C++ variant of the pretty_print > machinery. Thus, AFAICS, 72 never existed anywhere and, strictly speaking, > there is nothing to *restore*.
I do not know what you mean by "there is nothing to restore". Look at the other mail by Richard. The C pretty-printer *post*-dated the C++ pretty printer. > > But I may be wrong, I don't own viewcvs, I just quickly queried it. > > Paolo. >
