Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:49:11 -0500 From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> To: deeptech71@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: My whitespace style Message-ID: <320BA0A7-C5E0-40E5-97F9-F19BF1C61B29@hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: <49E51B42.2060405@gmail.com> References: <49E2FBE2.8020305@gmail.com> <20090413140912.GC29833@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> <49E51B42.2060405@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 14, 2009, at 6:24 PM, deeptech71@gmail.com wrote: > David Kelly wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:46:26AM +0200, deeptech71@gmail.com wrote: >>> Tabs are better, because they allow the programmer to specify the >>> desired width, and is dynamically changable at any time. >> Spaces are better because they let the author specify the >> formatting and >> not left to some other re-interpretation. > > And indeed they should used where formatting is important. However, > C/C++ indentation is not of this nature. It is if you want your comments to stay lined up, and code remain readable. There are many sections of code I write C in *columns*, especially when making repetitive calls to the same function with different arguments. I make the arguments line up in a column. printf() is a common example, that I want the arguments to line up no matter it has no effect on the output. I indent for readability and the result almost never survives variable tab interpretation. If I write the code and indent 3 or 4 or 8 spaces then by golly thats the way it should remain. If there is a project format spec then it should be written in .indent.pro and I will use it and make sure my code is readable after a pass through indent(1). This notion of tabs as a flexible indent is flawed. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?320BA0A7-C5E0-40E5-97F9-F19BF1C61B29>