Re: [pilot-db-list] CVS indentation strategy

[Tony M. <to...@ki...>]

We'd never get a standardized indentation style working.  I personally 
have used four spaces (no tabs) for decades, along with the old 
structured-C style braces (braces on their own lines), and find the BSD 
style function header line of type\nname(args){\n utterly 
incomprehensible even though I do a lot of commercial work on BSD. 

The open-source world is full of opinions, but there's no way to enforce 
a standard when all the work is charity.  So I would say do whatever you 
feel necessary for legibility and always use the -w parameter with cvs 
diff.  (That ignores all whitespace differences.)

Nathan Kurz wrote:

>As I start to do things with the CVS repository, it's apparent that
>Scott and Tom had different opinions on how indent C code.  The
>obvious difference is that Scott preferred 8 space indents, while the
>rest of the code (presumably mostly Tom's) has 4 space indents.
>
>The current code is often hard to read, because the indentation might
>change several times withing a given function.  Personally, I prefer
>GNU style with 2 space indents, but changing over to this would be
>silly.  So what is to be done?  My impulse is to restandardize to
>Tom's original 4 space indentation.
>
>The arguments against standardizing it now is that the CVS changes for
>the indentation will mask the CVS changes that might give good clues
>when one is searching for the cause of a recent bug.  The argument for
>standardizing now is that we are at a point we almost all the code in
>there is suspect, so when would be better than the present.
>
>Thoughts appreciated, although practical suggestions would be
>appreciated more than blind zealotry.  Left to my own devices, I'll
>probably just start re-indenting files before I start working on them,
>checking them in, and then checking my changes in on top of that.
>
>--nate
>  
>