Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:57:50 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> Subject: Re: spaces before tabs Message-ID: <20040316063436.G8024@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <xzphdwqc8ac.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <6.0.1.1.1.20040314234126.03adbc50@imap.sfu.ca> <6.0.1.1.1.20040315164047.03bd0ea8@imap.sfu.ca> <xzphdwqc8ac.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Dag-Erling [iso-8859-1] Sm=F8rgrav wrote: > Thomas Dickey <dickey@radix.net> writes: > > #define longstring "This is a string \ > > =09that does not really have \"leading blanks\", per \ > > =09se, but some scripts may have other opinions" Would you object to changing the formatting bugs in the string literal (embedded tabs)? :-) Misformatting of user-visible message is a larger bug than misformatting of source code. > this is one of the reasons why our style guidelines prohibit multiline > string literals. Actuallly, there is no such prohibition, and multiline string literals are normal style -- they are used in every CSRG copryright message in the src tree. There is only a C language prohibition on hard newlines in string literals (*). The above is not an example of this. (*) Hard newlines in string literals used to be a gcc feature, but gcc-3 dropped it, apparently without providing a flag to give backwards compatible behaviour. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040316063436.G8024>