From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jan 29 00:56:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA16282 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:52:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA16270 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:52:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA07280; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:49:11 -0800 (PST) To: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: Julian Elischer , Greg Lehey , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: btokup().. patch to STYLE(9) (fwd) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:43:14 +0100." <2392.917599394@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:49:10 -0800 Message-ID: <7276.917599750@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > ... Unless we're talking about modifications to existing files where > either style(9) or other systematic styles apply, in which case we > should all try to adapt our changes to that style to avoid babelized > codelayout. Absolutely. I was talking only about my own code, and code which I modify falls under a different set of rules. Basically, I just use whatever "style" the author is already using, even if there are no spaces between operators and they've written code which looks like: ``for(i=0;i<10;i++) blah;'' :-) It would be far too confusing otherwise to be reading through some body of code and suddenly see that for a short block in the middle, the style has just changed completely. Code which I *adopt*, of course, goes through my emacs re-indenting and formatting elisp function. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message