From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The current state of the comment-cache branch Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 17:36:58 +0200 Message-ID: <83y3z0ukth.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20161223215056.GA2771@acm.fritz.box> <83fuldzre1.fsf@gnu.org> <20161224083054.GA2212@acm.fritz.box> <83bmw1zoy8.fsf@gnu.org> <20161224094246.GD2212@acm.fritz.box> <20161224113620.GF2212@acm.fritz.box> <20161227175500.GD2324@acm.fritz.box> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1482939498 16589 195.159.176.226 (28 Dec 2016 15:38:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 15:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: lokedhs@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 28 16:38:14 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cMGIo-00035p-9n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:38:06 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59697 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cMGIt-0005iv-AG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:38:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35546) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cMGHq-0005Nr-TI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:37:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cMGHp-0001e7-VR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:37:06 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:41005) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cMGHp-0001e3-SD; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:37:05 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3749 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1cMGHo-0003ib-RS; Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:37:05 -0500 In-reply-to: <20161227175500.GD2324@acm.fritz.box> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Tue, 27 Dec 2016 17:55:00 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:210887 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 17:55:00 +0000 > Cc: emacs-devel , Eli Zaretskii > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > I'm still wondering how useful this could be for C code though. There are > > many coding conventions where the opening { of a function does not go in > > the left-most column. As far as I understand, such coding conventions would > > lead to slower parsing? > > This convention is not useful for C. Our coding standards clearly call for starting a function's body with an opening brace in column zero.