If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2013-11-26
Hi. Thanks for the patch, but I don't understand what this does. Can you provide a user case (step by step) that shows the difference between the two states (the option is turned on / off)?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Anonymous
-
2013-11-26
status: open --> pending
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but the jedit developer page says:
"Redirect this command to a file and attach it with proper documentation to a patches tracker item. "
With the current jedit trunk (and also the previous jedit 5.2.0 release) I get the following behavior when using auto-indent == full and tab width != indent width.
Here is an example with tab width == 8 and indent width == 4.
t_ marks tab, _ marks a whitespace.
int myfunc(int a)
{
____if (a==5) {
____t_ printf("Hello World\n");
____}
}
But I would like to get (and I think this is also more correct):
int myfunc(int a)
{
____if (a==5) {
t_ printf("Hello World\n");
____}
}
It's a simple patch against revision 24359. Maybe to simple, but it shows what I would like to get.
Hi. Thanks for the patch, but I don't understand what this does. Can you provide a user case (step by step) that shows the difference between the two states (the option is turned on / off)?
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but the jedit developer page says:
"Redirect this command to a file and attach it with proper documentation to a patches tracker item. "
With the current jedit trunk (and also the previous jedit 5.2.0 release) I get the following behavior when using auto-indent == full and tab width != indent width.
Here is an example with tab width == 8 and indent width == 4.
t_ marks tab, _ marks a whitespace.
But I would like to get (and I think this is also more correct):
It's a simple patch against revision 24359. Maybe to simple, but it shows what I would like to get.