RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jan 8 21:52:44 CET 2009 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-January/084940.html

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:43, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Can we then all agree that a policy of re-indenting per function as
>> changes are made to the code is acceptable but not required?
>
> Such a rule would certainly make *my* life a lot easier - the reason I
> find the tabs annoying is because I have my editor set to switch
> everything to 4 space indents by default, and I have to fiddle with it
> to get it to keep the tabs when I'm editing functions/files that
> previously used tabs for indenting.
>
> Even if we do adopt such a rule, C patches posted to the tracker should
> still try to avoid including pure whitespace changes though - leaving
> the whitespace changes in the patch tends to lead to patches that look
> like "remove function body, add different function body" when only a
> couple of lines have actually had significant changes.
>

That's fine with me. Correcting whitespace can be considered a committer's job.

-Brett

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-January/084940.html below:

[Python-Dev] Fixing incorrect indentations in C files (Decoder functions accept str in py3k)