Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/11/12/20:56:51
At 08:29 PM 11/12/2001, Robert Collins wrote:
>The standard gnu indent is doing horrible things..
>
>i.e.
>
>@@ -97,7 +102,8 @@ auth_retry:
>
> if (code < 200 || code >= 300)
> {
>- delete c;
>+ delete
>+ c;
> return;
> }
>
>Now, I'm of the opinion that second guessing your indent tool is a waste
>of time - may as well not have one.
>
>However, I'm quite happy to use a different indent tool, that stays with
>GNU indenting rules, but understands c++ well enough not to do the sort
>of idiocy show above.
>
>I don't have the time to research a replacement just now, or to fix
>indent itself, and it's a low priority - indent is consistent in what it
>does, not random, so diffs should be small from now on in.
>
>If someone here can suggest a better indent.. I'll take a look.
>Alternatively (preferred actually, but I don't wish to impinge on other
>folks time) if someone wanted to hack indent to be c++ aware (ideally
>including making things like headers with
>#ifdef __cplusplus
>extern "C" {
>#endif
>not indent the exported stuff.. that would be great.
There was a discussion on the main Cygwin list about alternatives to
indent (for C++) some time ago. A number of possibilities were brought
up. Unfortunately, I can only find the thread that makes mention of
the one alternative I had (bcpp). The thread in question is
"indent-2.2.5 and ed-0.2". Not sure where all the good pointers were
that I recall (or maybe I'm just hearing voices in my head... ;-) )
Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
- Raw text -