Re: GOP-PROP 10: scheme indentation

[Janek Warchoł]

2011/9/15 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> There's been no action on this for a few weeks.  I'm starting to
> wonder if we should abandon this proposal and try bringing it back
> in a few months.

That's strange, i had a vague feeling that the last status was a bit
of LGTMs and lots of silence, but...

2011/9/15 Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden>:
> Am Thursday, 15. September 2011, 14:47:30 schrieb Ian Hulin:
>> On 15/09/11 09:19, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> > I'd rather interpret no action as tacit approval.  As your
>> > electronics colleague once said, "Just do it."  :)
>> >
>> > Trevor
>>
>> 1+
>
> +1

++


2011/9/15 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Personally, I'd prefer it if we focused on solving rather than creating
> real problems.  It is not like we are talking about fixing
> machine-generated sources without indentation here.  Sources _are_
> readable, they just don't look quite uniform.  But I think that the
> non-whitespace parts of our code offer enough and more significant
> opportunities for cleanup work.

i'd love to see more comments in the code!  Currently i have hard time
reading note-collision.cc - after more than an hour i still only have
a vague idea what's going on there.  If anyone'd like to explain this,
i'd be greatful!  I cannot write a good fix for 1546 until i
understand note-collision.cc

cheers,
Janek