Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Justin Lecher (jlec)" <jlec@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Indention in metadata.xml
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 12:22:51
Message-Id: 5572E60E.9040301@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Indention in metadata.xml by Ulrich Mueller
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA512
3
4 On 06/06/15 14:07, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
5 >>>>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Duncan wrote:
6 >
7 >>> *If* we should agree on using tabs, then we should also
8 >>> standardise the tab width. Using the same rules for indenting
9 >>> and whitespace as for ebuilds (i.e., tab stops every four
10 >>> positions) suggests itself:
11 >>> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/file-format/index.html#i
12 ndenting-and-whitespace
13 >
14 >>>
15 >> (Somewhat) More seriously, standardizing the tab size defeats
16 >> the purpose, letting people decide for themselves, particularly
17 >> when it's to be the declared horizontal spacing standard in a
18 >> file such as this, where mixed spaces and tabs can be avoided, so
19 >> someone's personal setting shouldn't be mixed up by someone using
20 >> spaces instead
21 >
22 > It plays a role when at the same time there is a policy about the
23 > line width. For example, the devmanual has this (about _ebuilds_,
24 > not about metadata.xml):
25 >
26 > # Where possible, try to keep lines no wider than 80 positions. # A
27 > 'position' is generally the same as a character — tabs are four #
28 > positions wide, and multibyte characters are just one position
29 > wide.
30 >
31 > This would make no sense with the width of a tab being arbitrary.
32 >
33 >> (and if it is, the non-standard spaces in place of tabs is
34 >> simply much more obvious, allowing easier detection /due/ to the
35 >> non-standardized tabsize, and replacing with tabs as
36 >> appropriate).
37 >
38 > I don't understand this part. We would have either spaces or tabs,
39 > but not both. And e.g. Emacs can highlight tabs (with
40 > whitespace-mode) so there's no problem seeing them.
41 >
42 >> But IMO it's all simply bikeshedding, regardless.
43 >
44 > Maybe. But standardising it could simplify life when updating
45 > metadata files with a script.
46 >
47
48 Exactly, that was my intention.
49
50 How about
51
52 * indent with tab
53 * tab == 4 spaces
54 * linewidth >> 80 (why do we have this short limit still in 2015)
55
56 Justin
57
58 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
59 Version: GnuPG v2.0
60
61 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJVcuYOXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
62 ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ0QUU0N0I4NzFERUI0MTJFN0EyODE0NUFF
63 OTQwMkE3OUIwMzUyOUEyAAoJEOlAKnmwNSmigYkQAIGipC0pMA0JcMTu4aoTM+jj
64 5T8QOd+zh7SxyuELiie6ZJV+JsccyXZsFZjqYOHptVfqsOuLXlhqv+mC/iAH/zjg
65 pAqyA1BYbuf8D5j1liF7t85CT8K4C9gUfNOjIQbVMqaLubEO4+Kzc8ik+LQ4O9Ca
66 06Sp1bwtBbcNNzpsLZ/Xa60uCGWgdcopcLEujtP34AxSVfa9NgyWs7a1ceRKMv8m
67 +9T3WryOB6dzLQu1da+nUIOnlkwxau0mlDuwA2F968F5ewbophRf+0Tn5FiSu/zb
68 D0wm3LX0pPIk/l/r9BN7mZHh/yokO6iyMcGhSUyNdUys2G3b2LvOOoXW1MfX8SWE
69 YlZVZhzpImG/yVJu6dr7LSHmXo4NNZ8ZZb7uTgKM2NvyO3tX0BZt8RyAXipRP5+X
70 YFuXDf70zagnuAe/iUfw8+vFqb+JzShAvnD7DI7XpoKOkGl1W5XN06suDzUsSRfx
71 F9lFUk4kD2Xwp0zZpTBncCAzcidSbikUQM/CaBATg+62PwvQisvSBtnz0+eGUSMI
72 iUPj8fJhyuZCoYOPEq+wvTdQwYfpd8PLhKxlTEjDb2qY6uVbqxaznE2A6tmkBG9K
73 5MriinvGOkjdfxvv+rNwPiMDrnaTgljuXEg64mgUz/7/3m3jb1lyYHMIzoiJpIBH
74 ynDhu68FZTXb+RUVc2wo
75 =+HgJ
76 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Indention in metadata.xml "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" <mva@×××.name>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Indention in metadata.xml Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Indention in metadata.xml Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Indention in metadata.xml Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o>