Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> BTW, there's a bug in entab.c, too. This line:
>
> #include "../include/c.h"
>
> should read
>
> #include "../../include/c.h"
Thanks. Fixed.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+
BTW, there's a bug in entab.c, too. This line:
#include "../include/c.h"
should read
#include "../../include/c.h"
cheers
andrew
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregiste
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >GNU indent does a reasonable job, but it did some strange spacing for
> >function definitions, if I remember correctly. Can you test by running
> >pgindent and gnuindent through the /executor files and do a diff to see
> >the differences in formatting?
> >
>
> after I add
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I grabbed the patched BSD indent from a mirror. Here's a couple of points:
. with a little trial and error GNU indent 2.2.9 actually did quite a
reasonable job for me last night. But I guess YMMV. I'm curious to know
what nasty mangling it does.
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I grabbed the patched BSD indent from a mirror. Here's a couple of points:
>
> . with a little trial and error GNU indent 2.2.9 actually did quite a
> reasonable job for me last night. But I guess YMMV. I'm curious to know
> what nasty mangling it does.
GNU indent doe
I grabbed the patched BSD indent from a mirror. Here's a couple of points:
. with a little trial and error GNU indent 2.2.9 actually did quite a
reasonable job for me last night. But I guess YMMV. I'm curious to know
what nasty mangling it does.
. the file is a compressed tar file - it would be
