[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Indention in metadata.xml

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Duncan  wrote:

>> *If* we should agree on using tabs, then we should also standardise
>> the tab width. Using the same rules for indenting and whitespace as
>> for ebuilds (i.e., tab stops every four positions) suggests itself:
>> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#indenting-and-whitespace

> (Somewhat) More seriously, standardizing the tab size defeats the
> purpose, letting people decide for themselves, particularly when
> it's to be the declared horizontal spacing standard in a file such
> as this, where mixed spaces and tabs can be avoided, so someone's
> personal setting shouldn't be mixed up by someone using spaces
> instead

It plays a role when at the same time there is a policy about the line
width. For example, the devmanual has this (about _ebuilds_, not about
metadata.xml):

# Where possible, try to keep lines no wider than 80 positions.
# A 'position' is generally the same as a character — tabs are four
# positions wide, and multibyte characters are just one position wide.

This would make no sense with the width of a tab being arbitrary.

> (and if it is, the non-standard spaces in place of tabs is simply
> much more obvious, allowing easier detection /due/ to the
> non-standardized tabsize, and replacing with tabs as appropriate).

I don't understand this part. We would have either spaces or tabs, but
not both. And e.g. Emacs can highlight tabs (with whitespace-mode) so
there's no problem seeing them.

> But IMO it's all simply bikeshedding, regardless.

Maybe. But standardising it could simplify life when updating metadata
files with a script.

Ulrich