From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 15 04:46:53 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779F2106564A for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:46:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deeptech71@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f167.google.com (mail-fx0-f167.google.com [209.85.220.167]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF3A8FC16 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:46:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deeptech71@gmail.com) Received: by fxm11 with SMTP id 11so2758429fxm.43 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:46:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GeNgCB5yIvGV1/x8WwRYhkbJTyfB6/JucBjw7/lMZCM=; b=uyCY/UurJsluIiZ5BC/ViY5skEuHirejAqwOc+ezxMThN7/Iv2gsgHFI6DO5jfaR5c ELxHLO631hceNGE/iiSs3kUh7bjFPCne0es/ztPHFaCDINXhLTnIyJDGA+lMSORTWVcp wC9Tcw/53f+8cDBxVvzUipdlNHZDHukaUuuAI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YY4yvOINOSSBjbjdyayFJ9LDoHN0UgcbY3MWCxIXLMQGqIHkKeV0b6KN+WYwnfb1s7 8MA+zN4xYSJsdL63+LZJ27vgg2Nzvv732fq9iT9ZCFrqjDkJHixtjhfDuOhDDJkqSiTu vtbFTLeHzzB42Y16BVM26sDWmLDTLuN/O5I94= Received: by 10.204.119.71 with SMTP id y7mr7671556bkq.16.1239770811843; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?157.181.96.136? (quark.teteny.elte.hu [157.181.96.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d13sm7701077fka.0.2009.04.14.21.46.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49E5670C.8070708@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 06:48:12 +0200 From: deeptech71@gmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 SeaMonkey/1.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org References: <49E2FBE2.8020305@gmail.com> <20090413140912.GC29833@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> <49E51B42.2060405@gmail.com> <320BA0A7-C5E0-40E5-97F9-F19BF1C61B29@hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: <320BA0A7-C5E0-40E5-97F9-F19BF1C61B29@hiwaay.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: My whitespace style X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 04:46:53 -0000 David Kelly wrote: > > 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. I don't want to make my comments stay lined up, and code still remains reabable. > 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. Could you please give me a (preferrably widely used) example of columnizing calls which cross different levels of indentation?