Re: [Bug-indent] procname-start-lines and hability to position of return function type

[david ingamells]

Eric,
I'm pleased you like what you see, although I cannot take much of the credit
for the improvements, having taken over as maintainer not long before the
release of 2.2.7.

Regarding your request, as indent does not really look ahead in the file, at 
the time that the function type is seen indent cannot differentiate between
a global variable declaration and a function declaration. Therefore whatever
indent is set to will apply to the indentation of both. Is this what your 
coding standard requires? e.g. how should

int a_global_variable;
int a_function()
{
   return 1;
}

be indented?

Currently I am (slowly) working my way through the outstanding bug reports 
and will only start on new features when the major items in the bug list are 
resolved. Therefore I cannot make any promises about the time you will have 
to wait to get any new features.

Regards,

David.

On Wednesday 30 January 2002 10:57 am, VALETTE Eric wrote:
> First I would like to thank all the people that hace contributed to
> develop indent 2.2.7. I gave up using indent long time ago and was using
> emacs to format the code. With indent 2.2.7, I think I may revise my
> position.
>
> I currently use the following, .indent.pro setup
> -cdb -sc -br -ce -bli4 -brs -i2 -nbbo -ts4 -nut -sob -psl
>
> And I'm pretty satisfied with wht it does except for the the psl option
> that should be complemented or (use the -i setting) for putting the
> return type not on the first colum but aligned with type definition
> inside the prodcedure definition.
>
> int foo() {return 1;}
> is transformed into :
>
>
> int
> foo ()
> {
>    return 1;
> }
>
> The programming standart I use requires :
>
>    int
> foo ()
> {
>    return 1;
> }

-- 
David Ingamells
address@hidden
+31 (013) 5093388     (home)
+31 065010947 (mobile)