From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change of C indentation style ('{') Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:41:41 -0500 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20031029214141.GA30336@fencepost> References: <200310230109.KAA09465@etlken.m17n.org> <5bhe1zy4z8.fsf@lister.roxen.com> <5b1xt1l6si.fsf@lister.roxen.com> <5bn0bm7o7n.fsf@lister.roxen.com> <5boevzsv11.fsf@lister.roxen.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1067464590 16758 80.91.224.253 (29 Oct 2003 21:56:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-cc-mode@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, handa@m17n.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 29 22:56:23 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AEyIh-0000FR-00 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:56:23 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AEyIh-0004sU-00 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:56:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AEyGg-0004iN-Hc for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:54:18 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AEyCq-0000ta-Ah for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:50:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AEyCC-0000HE-R2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:50:11 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AEy9j-0007CZ-LV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:47:07 -0500 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.24) id 1AEy4T-00083V-9H; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:41:41 -0500 Original-To: Martin Stjernholm Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5boevzsv11.fsf@lister.roxen.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:17590 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:17590 On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 08:28:42PM +0100, Martin Stjernholm wrote: > I don't think that would be necessary. As I said in another branch of > this thread, these macro constructs are only truly ambiguous with old > K&R style function definitions. So it ought to be possible to solve > with more careful checks. What about the example I gave (in another message) that would seem to indicate otherwise? [Not that I think requring `declarations' of macros is a very workable idea -- people wouldn't do it 99% of the time] -Miles -- .Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.