On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 02:01:53AM +0200, Max Laier wrote: >On Saturday 26 April 2008 23:35:57 Romain Tartière wrote: >> I'm using avr-gcc from the ports and relying on the 0b prefix notation >> for binary constants, that is: >> >> foo = 0b00101010; ... >I can't think of a case (outside of "0x...." context) where "...0b..." >would be valid C code, let alone better formated as "...0 b...". Hence I >see no harm in adding your patch to the base indent(1). > >Does anyone have an example where "...0 b..." is valid C code?
More relevantly (and excluding avr-gcc) , 0b00101010 is not a valid token as is, whereas "0 b00101010" may be (if b00101010 is a macro). By inserting whitespace, indent(1) is changing the syntax of the input and, IMHO, indent should not be doing that - its brief is to re-arrange whitespace to (hopefully) improve legibility, not make syntactic changes. I would support changing indent to bring its tokenisation more into line with the C preprocessor. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
pgpN6ULrF8d3B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
