PATCH for java.nio FileChannel and MappedByteBuffer

[Boehm, Hans]

Isn't this argument backwards?

As far as I'm concerned, unindented "ifdef"s are just as bad as unindented "if"s.
I can't think of any reason to indent one and not the other.  (There is an issue
with #ifdefs that don't nest correctly inside other program structure, and are
thus unavoidably hard to read.  But I don't think that was the topic here.)

If emacs doesn't indent "ifdef"s, it needs to be fixed.

I don't use emacs, so I don't know.  But I'm also not a great believer in fully automatic
indentation:

		do_something;
		/* informal assertion */
		do_something_else;
		and_something_else;

looks to a formatter just like

		do_something;
		/* Informal description of big task	*/
		  step1_of_big_task;
		  step2_of_big_task;


Hans
		 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: java-owner@gcc.gnu.org 
> [mailto:java-owner@gcc.gnu.org]On Behalf Of
> Andrew Haley
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 2:24 AM
> To: Ranjit Mathew
> Cc: java@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: PATCH for java.nio FileChannel and MappedByteBuffer
> 
> 
> Ranjit Mathew writes:
>  > though it does not seem to be mandated (or frowned
>  > upon) by the GNU coding standards document, stuff
>  > within #ifdef conditionals looks much better (IMHO)
>  > when it's indented like stuff within "regular" if
>  > statements like so:
>  > 
>  >   #ifdef FOO
>  >     #include <snafu.h>
>  >   #endif /* FOO */
>  > 
>  > or perhaps like so for some older pre-processors:
>  > 
>  >   #ifdef FOO
>  >   #  include <snafu.h>
>  >   #endif /* FOO */
> 
> The question is "does EMACS do this?"  I am human and therefore
> fallible, and I know that if I do indentation by hand I'll screw it up
> and waste a lot of time trying to get it right.  So I don't do
> indentation by hand, ever.  As far as I am aware thr GNU coding
> standards do not mandate anythying that EMACS doesn't do.
> 
> Andrew.
>