Hi Claudio and Todd,
Todd C. Miller wrote on Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 02:01:23PM -0600:
> You are expected to know that ^I (control-I) is the tab character.
> Using ^I instead of a literal tab character in the manual was
> supposed to make it clear that this is a tab and not a series of
> spaces but
You are expected to know that ^I (control-I) is the tab character.
Using ^I instead of a literal tab character in the manual was
supposed to make it clear that this is a tab and not a series of
spaces but maybe it is not so obvious...
- todd
--- src/share/man/man9/style.9.orig Mon Jan 25 17:23:08 2021
+++ src/share/man/man9/style.9 Thu Jul 15 16:44:09 2021
@@ -194,9 +194,9 @@ by size (largest to smallest), then by alphabetical or
The first category normally doesn't apply, but there are exceptions.
Each one gets its own
On 04/22/11 18:44, Marc Espie wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:39:28PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Mike Williams wrote:
The style(9) man page contains the statement
Don't use the same name for a struct tag and a typedef, as this makes
the code unu
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:39:28PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Mike Williams wrote:
> > The style(9) man page contains the statement
> >
> > Don't use the same name for a struct tag and a typedef, as this makes
> > the code unusab
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:16 AM, Mike Williams wrote:
> The style(9) man page contains the statement
>
> Don't use the same name for a struct tag and a typedef, as this makes
> the code unusable from C++.
>
> My question is how does this make the code unusable from C+
Remco writes:
> Mike Williams wrote:
>
>> [asbestos suit donned? check!]
>>
>> The style(9) man page contains the statement
>>
>>Don't use the same name for a struct tag and a typedef, as this makes
>>the code unusable from C++.
&g
On 04/22/11 14:21, Remco wrote:
Mike Williams wrote:
[asbestos suit donned? check!]
The style(9) man page contains the statement
Don't use the same name for a struct tag and a typedef, as this makes
the code unusable from C++.
My question is how does this make the code unusable
Mike Williams wrote:
> [asbestos suit donned? check!]
>
> The style(9) man page contains the statement
>
>Don't use the same name for a struct tag and a typedef, as this makes
>the code unusable from C++.
>
> My question is how does this make the co
[asbestos suit donned? check!]
The style(9) man page contains the statement
Don't use the same name for a struct tag and a typedef, as this makes
the code unusable from C++.
My question is how does this make the code unusable from C++?
An interweb search doesn't turn up any e
> Hi Gregory,
>
> > Just wondering, which settings for indent correspond to style(9)?
>
> I have had good luck with these:
>
> ...
>
> I believe I got these from a NetBSD mailing list.
By the way, I highly recommend you check these against the manual
rather tha
Hi Gregory,
> Just wondering, which settings for indent correspond to style(9)?
I have had good luck with these:
-bap
-br
-ce
-ci4
-cli0
-d0
-di0
-i8
-ip
-l79
-nbc
-ncdb
-ndj
-ei
-nfc1
-nlp
-npcs
-psl
-sc
-sob
I believe I got these from a NetBSD mailing list.
Maybe someone interested sho
Hi,
Just wondering, which settings for indent correspond to style(9)?
--
With best regards,
Gregory Edigarov
On 14 July 2010 19:17, Paul Irofti wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:43:42PM -0300, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
>> I've ended up rolling my own with some help from n...@freenode (not
>> nicm@) some years ago, it works *fine* for almost everything.
>
> Just so you know, they're one and the sam
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 02:43:42PM -0300, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
> I've ended up rolling my own with some help from n...@freenode (not
> nicm@) some years ago, it works *fine* for almost everything.
Just so you know, they're one and the same.
Is there a official/standard c-style for emacs that conforms to style(9) ?
I've ended up rolling my own with some help from n...@freenode (not
nicm@) some years ago, it works *fine* for almost everything.
If someone has a full-working one, could you paste it here ?
follows mine:
(defun
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 02:25:50PM +1030, David Walker wrote:
> I am thinking of doing some reformatting and prefer to do it correctly.
Everything tedu said. I'll add that it's more important to understand
why style(9) says what it says than to blindly obey it. The goal being
to wri
Thanks Ted.
I am thinking of doing some reformatting and prefer to do it correctly.
Best wishes,
David
On 11/7/07, David Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> style(9) man page (DESCRIPTION section) says:
> Then there's a blank line, followed by the /usr/include files. The
> /usr/include files should be sorted!
>
> I guess this means alphabetically. Can some
Hiya.
style(9) man page (DESCRIPTION section) says:
Then there's a blank line, followed by the /usr/include files. The
/usr/include files should be sorted!
I guess this means alphabetically. Can someone confirm or deny please?
Also, although not explicitly stated, it appears
Any way which is not a real bug or hole.
> I wonder what the preferred style of return statments is -- for
> returning simple values, both styles
>
> return foo;
>
> and
>
> return (foo);
>
> are used in the sources everythen and now. For me, the latter hurts
> my eyes, since retur
On 4/30/06, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:18:05PM +0100, Nick Guenther wrote:
> I was wondering this myself last week, but I remembered that someone
> once said "check all the examples before deciding style(9) is silent
> on an issu
Matthias Kilian wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 03:44:13PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > There is a
> > return (eight);
> > in man style.
>
> But in err() context.
>
> > I suspect that bad things can happen with macros
> > when you do only sensible things with parens.
>
> Good poin
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 03:44:13PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There is a
> return (eight);
> in man style.
But in err() context.
> I suspect that bad things can happen with macros
> when you do only sensible things with parens.
Good point, but if a macro `foo' works with
retu
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:18:05PM +0100, Nick Guenther wrote:
> I was wondering this myself last week, but I remembered that someone
> once said "check all the examples before deciding style(9) is silent
> on an issue" and so I did. The examples all use `return (expr);`.
Hav
ntax is something like
> >
> > return_stmt:: RETURN ';'
> > | RETURN expr ';'
> > ;
> >
> > So why do so many people put brackets around the returned expression?
> > And what's the preferred style for OpenBSD?
>
, but I remembered that someone
once said "check all the examples before deciding style(9) is silent
on an issue" and so I did. The examples all use `return (expr);`. I
didn't pursue it any further because in the two files I checked that
was the style used as well, but now that I know
Hi!
I wonder what the preferred style of return statments is -- for
returning simple values, both styles
return foo;
and
return (foo);
are used in the sources everythen and now. For me, the latter hurts
my eyes, since return just expects an rvalue which doesn't need
brackets (e
28 matches
Mail list logo
