[MPlayer-dev-eng] Indentation style (was: [PATCH] Fix useless dependencies in the stream lib)
diego at biurrun.de
Thu Apr 10 11:28:34 CEST 2008
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:03:53AM +0200, Alban Bedel wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:15:30 +0200
> Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 02:30:55AM +0200, Alban Bedel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 18:33:11 -0400
> > > Robert Henney <robh at rut.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > if someone wants to create/maintain such an editor rc file that
> > > > defines the desired editor parameters for each source file, that
> > > > seems more favorable to me over the idea of littering magic
> > > > comments throughout the files in the source tree. the rc file
> > > > may then be included into anyones editor rc files who desires
> > > > it. also I would imagine that different magic comments would
> > > > need to be added to every file for every editor that comes along,
> > > > which would mean patching every source file individually.
> > > > *shiver* With an rc file, for any new editor just another single
> > > > rc file would need to be created.
> > >
> > > That sound interesting, I'll look at it. But I suppose the
> > > "anti-tags" would have the same objections, as it is in effect the
> > > same, just at a different place.
> > Not at all. Tags would clutter up each individual source file.
> > Resource files would not even need to be part of the MPlayer
> > repository.
> But your wording seems to imply you don't want them in the repo, or?
> Sure I can do whatever I want in my $HOME, but if they can't be
> published with the rest of the MPlayer code, that severely reduce their
I was being imprecise. Such a resource file would not "need" to be part
of the source tree. But I surely would not mind having one in etc/,
DOCS/tech/ or whereever.
More information about the MPlayer-dev-eng