RE: indent syntax

["Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall at rfk dot com>]

At 07:29 PM 4/10/2001, Robert Collins wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf@redhat.com]
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 07:51:53AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Corinna Vinschen" <vinschen@redhat.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:45:14PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> > >> > What indent syntax do you use for cygwin? I just noticed a huge
> > >change
> > >> > to the threads layout ..
> > >> >
> > >> > If you could let me know I'll use the same.
> > >>
> > >> We're using the GNU Coding Standard:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_toc.html
> > >>
> > >> Corinna
> > >>
> > >
> > >Well that leaves me confused. Indent is meant to default to the GNu
> > >coding standards. So why did Chris commit a change to pthread.cc,
> > >thread.cc, that moved every function definition to the left 
> > hand border?
> > >I'm indenting these files with indent foo.c (indent 2.2.5).
> > 
> > Because indent did not do the right thing in this case.  The 
> > GNU coding
> > standard says that functions and braces should start at the leftmost
> > border.
> > 
> > I don't know if there is an option to indent which 
> > accomodates c++ specifically
> > or not, but I suspect that indent is confused by the extern "C" {
> > stuff.
> > 
> > cgf
> > 
>
>Ah. I'll see what I can find for indent and C++. I'm not looking forward
>to reformatting these source files by hand to fix indent's confusion.
>
>Rob

You may want to look at bcpp.  It purports to be a "C(++) Beautifier".


Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX