On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Magnus Fromreide <ma...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: > 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.
I agree here. It's the same we do for case labels. Richard. > /MF >
