Re: an i18n sample

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 11:57:43AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Baurjan Ismagulov wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 08:41:02PM +0100, Baurjan Ismagulov wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 12:14:59AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>
> >>>Very good, thanks.
> >>
> >>Would you like to apply this?
> >
> >
> >Corrected the concatenation style.
> 
> Baurjan, I really appologise here, but people should have known better 
> than to request that you also make cosmetic changes such as switching 
> from this:

Andrew, thank you so much for _apologizing profusely_ for me, and then
_approving_ and _committing_ a patch containing style changes that I
_objected_ to.  Do you begin to see why I dislike working with you?
Do you at least acknowledge that you are being rude to me?

Baurjan did not preserve the existing style of concatenation; he
changed it to be uniform, to the one I object to (for the reasons I
gave).  If you disagree with my reasons, then let's discuss that
instead of you executively overriding them.  Neither the GNU nor GDB
coding style expresses a preference here.  Baurjan and I both prefer
the concatenation style for aesthetic reasons and no one else chose to
express an opinion.

> The former style is used for for a clear and simple reason - it greatly 
> simplifies the challenge of ensuring that the lines are <80 characters. 

It also makes the source code much harder to skim through, because it
masks the indentation of the containing statement.  And it makes diff
-p less useful.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz