> Expanding tabs is a possibility, but I'm not convinced it's > necessary. It > would require changes in the way we do things. In > particular, for me at > least, "cvs commit" would have to do the expansion, because > not all the code > I check in comes from my editor, and my normal sanity checks > (cvs diff) > won't catch tabs. Maybe this could be done on the cvs > server? Anyway, it > would be a change from what we do now, and I would want to > hear a compelling > reason to change.
I think that was the intention (to run an indent on all code before it is committed), but I'm not positive that's what Derrick had in mind. > The issue of indentation is, or should be, separate from that > of tabs. I > happen to like i4, because it keeps the code from dropping > off the right > edge of my screen, and because that's what we have now. But > I could be > convinced to switch to i8, which is what most of our kernels > seem to use. > I don't think I would like any other value of i. I agree, I like -i4 as well, problem was when you also set your editor to tabstop=4, it collapses ifs. Expanding all tabs will take care of that. > My version of indent doesn't like the options you have proposed, so if > someone could make available a file that has been re-indented with the > proposed options, I would appreciate it. I've been in > afs_vcache.c lately > so that would be a good choice. You must have a pretty old version of indent... -- Nathan ------------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Neulinger EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-4841 Computing Services Fax: (573) 341-4216 _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
