In <v04204901b30f28eab0d4(_at_)129(_dot_)46(_dot_)158(_dot_)108> Randall
Gellens <randy(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
At 11:00 AM +0000 3/11/99, Charles Lindsey wrote:
No, I still think it is too slim. Consider the range of possibilities that
might be provided:
[snip]
I still think the proposal is best kept as is, at least for the
initial version. I really don't want to add any more complexity. We
already have enough (maybe too much).
I don't like the idea of an 'initial version' - it implies that a more
complex version will follow later. Trouble is, people who implement the
'initial version' will be none too happy if a 'revised version' follows
too soon afterwards.
But in fact, what I suggest is not significantly more complex than what is
proposed already (which is itself an 'uncomplex' as anything I have seen).
It is already the case that the implementer has to keep a count of '>' at
the beginning of a line, and then to do the line wrapping without those
characters, and finally but them back after the wrapping.
What I am proposing merely requires a count of the SPACE characters at the
beginning of the line (with some allowance for TABs), to be counted AFTER
the '>' have been removed, but then treated in precisely the same way
(i.e. count them, remove them, wrap the line, and put them back).
If you want the 'exdent' feature as well, then you need to look also at
the space count of the following line.
That is not complex, and it would improve the usefulness of the feature
immeasurably.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Web:
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5