From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5926 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2002 19:45:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5919 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2002 19:45:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (142.179.108.108) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Sep 2002 19:45:33 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 27815D2CC1; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:45:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: usage of tab in the indentation... Message-ID: <20020912194531.GC1105@gnat.com> References: <20020912190625.GB1105@gnat.com> <3D80E9D5.5AACB552@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D80E9D5.5AACB552@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 > For my part, I just use emacs' default formatting, which > pretty much relieves me of worrying about formatting, since > it almost always conforms to the coding standard. And emacs > uses tabs. It would be a nuisance for me to have to change. That's fair enough. I know it would cause some of us some problems to switch to spaces, so wasn't really hoping for a change in policy, but I'm still curious as to why we used tabs and not spaces. What are the benefits? In the meantime, I take it people will not yell if the indentation in a patch looks a bit bizarre :-)... -- Joel