[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: untabify - last call for objections
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
Re: untabify - last call for objections |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:02:15 GMT |
I'm not sure `indent` is being kept up to date TBH.
As Simon mentioned, David Ingamells released indent 2.2.10 early this
year after a lapse of some years. So perhaps sending a report to
bug-indent about the missing type definitions, etc. would have some
effect.
-l80
I strongly suggest 79; I'd hate 80, myself. Indent's default of 78 also
seems ok to me here.
Best,
Karl
- Re: doc vs. README, (continued)
- Re: untabify - last call for objections, Simon Josefsson, 2009/12/10
- Re: untabify - last call for objections, Jim Meyering, 2009/12/10
- Re: untabify - last call for objections, Bruno Haible, 2009/12/10
- Re: untabify - last call for objections, Simon Josefsson, 2009/12/10
- Re: untabify, coding standards, Bruno Haible, 2009/12/10
- Re: untabify, coding standards, Simon Josefsson, 2009/12/10
- Re: untabify - last call for objections, Pádraig Brady, 2009/12/10
- Re: untabify - last call for objections, Simon Josefsson, 2009/12/10
- Re: untabify - last call for objections,
Karl Berry <=
- Re: untabify - last call for objections, Bruno Haible, 2009/12/10
- Re: untabify - last call for objections, Jim Meyering, 2009/12/11
Re: update copyrights?, Bruno Haible, 2009/12/07