On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:38 AM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > Karthik Nayak <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: >> ... >>> It is very very dissapointing to allow the "next atom only" >>> implementation to squat on a good name "align:<type>,<width>", >>> especially when I thought that the list agreed >>> >>> %(align:<type>,<width>) any string with or without %(atom) %(end) >>> >>> would be the way to go. >> >> From what I read, I thought we wanted the next atom or string to be >> aligned, if we need to align everything within the %(end) atom. > > Is that a serious comment? > > Did I read too much into your $gmane/275119, expecting that you > understood everything you are saying "That's a good way to go" to?
Sorry, I kinda was thinking only WRT to the %(if) and %(end) part of it. Even though you clearly mentioned about %(align) also. > >> I could do that :) > > Sure ;-) I have it ready, will wait to see if there are more comments and send with next iteration of the series. -- Regards, Karthik Nayak -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
