On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 michaelh@... wrote:
> Or, to quote Ethan:
> NO NO NO NO NO NO!
> I don't shout often, but please do not do an automated re-format of the code.
> It completly breaks the CVS history, merging, and is just plain unnessercary.
> Certian people have done this to sdcc before and it caused a world of hurt for
> no benefit.
> Always follow, in spirit at least, the coding style of any pre-existing code.
> sdcc's may be ugly but at least it is a standard.
Since there's no context in your message, it's not clear to whom this
shout should be directed (but since I started this thread, I'll go ahead
and respond :). I don't think anyone wants to arbitrarily reformat the
code (even though arbitrary formatting is what's crept in over time). The
last time someone did this it screwed up a bunch of stuff. I did suggest
introducing a 'make indent' option as a method of fixing the adhoc (or
defacto sdcc standard) style that's currently used. One obviously must use
this feature judiciously, perhaps during the code freeze phase just before
The only reason I'm even bothering to bring up this issue is I noticed
that someone has (arbitrarily) re-formatted the pic14 port. A little
digging around in the src directory also indicates a random scattering of
tabs and differing amounts of indentation. Sure it's a matter of
esthetics, but to be quite frank it's sloppy and unprofessional.
But, to get back to my original question which prompted this thread - I
thought a couple of years ago we had said not to use tabs; is this true or
not? If not then that's fine. In which case, I'll let my editor work it's
magic in the areas I touch. If so, then I'll create an SDCC-C mode for
emacs and use it. I don't really care to debate the esthetics of 2,4, or 8
tabs - I really only care about consistancy. Bernhard has taken steps to
say that SDCC should adhere to the "gnu style". Unfortunately, that style
says nothing about tabs...