On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 10/17/2011 01:16 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >> 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. > > Hey, I don't own viewcvs, of svn, for that matter, you could also dare to > help a bit with this crazy archeological task, can't you?!?
Let's not be quick to judgment and throw more rocks before we get all the facts. Please understand that I have been helping and looking at past changesets and present history. I appreciate that Richard did not think I was just be delusional and helped going back further. I can help by presenting history. It is not my fault when you choose to doubt or ignore. That isn't under my control.