Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.3/V2.0) id LAA19415; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:13:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from paris.ics.uci.edu by taz.hyperreal.com (8.8.3/V2.0) with SMTP id LAA19407; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 11:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from liege.ics.uci.edu by paris.ics.uci.edu id aa16083; 4 Dec 96 10:58 PST To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: indent and .indent.pro In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Dec 1996 20:50:06 CST." <199612040250.UAA05671@sierra.zyzzyva.com> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 10:58:09 -0800 From: "Roy T. Fielding" Message-ID: <9612041058.aa16083@paris.ics.uci.edu> Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com > FYI the .pro file is not doing what I would expect, and damned if > I can figure out why. Looks like it completely screwed up on the for loop. What version are you using? > We should probably add a '-l70' as well. Without it, it sure makes > a mess of the copyright. > > Roy, can you tell me what needs to be changed? Not right now -- I only committed the agreed-upon profile, and then stopped when people complained. It needs to be tested on a number of files and have the rest of the indent options added until it is as good (and reliable) as possible. Even then, the user will still have to go through the file afterwords and manually adjust some things. There will be some cases where the existing file is already better formatted than indent. I am about to turn into a pumpkin for a month, so I won't be able to do it. .....Roy