On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 15:17 -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 6/25/12, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > [ Added doc maintainers in CC ] > > >
> I have added a bit more in the rationale, reached through the link > at the end of that section. > > > > > +<p> > > > > +Indent protection labels by one space. > > > > +</p> > > > > + > > > > +<p> > > > > +Indent class members by two spaces. > > > > Do all the listed indentation rules correspond to what a <TAB> > > will do by default when editing C++ code in GNU Emacs? If not, > > we have conflicting notions of GNU C++ indentation conventions. > > I have no idea. I don't use emacs. The two-space rule for members > comes from the wiki. The one-space rule for protection labels is > common practice. If folks want something else, changes are fine > with me. Two spaces for members is common practice with GNU, and it seems to be used for libstdc++. One space for protection labels is not something I have heard of before and libstdc++ uses no indentation for them. A freshly started emacs also doesn't indent access labels. I do think there is some value in using the same coding style for libstdc++ and the compiler. /MF
