Boost logo

Boost :

From: Bertolt Mildner (Bertolt.Mildner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-13 13:54:14

"Leo Goodstadt" <leo.goodstadt_at_[hidden]> schrieb im
> On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 12:13 +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Bertolt Mildner wrote:
> >
> > >> Yes, formatting is smashed anyway, so ignoring the tabs on the
> > > line
> > >> is a viable option.
> > >
> > > OK, so they are ignored, *but* i still think that asserting on it is
> > > because in the other case (= fixed length set by user or even worth,
> > > length defaults to m_default_line_length cause user did *not* set a
> > > length at all) it would mean that the formatting simply silently
> > > Not very nice form a users point of view!
> >
> I am joining this discussion really late but I have also written (an in-
> house) prettifier which reformats the options descriptions.
> Some thoughts:
> One of things I did was to align the description lines of different sets
> of options. (I usually have at least two sets of options, one of which
> is truly optional, and one of which is mandatory. I.e. an exception is
> throw if any are missing).

Could you clarify this? Maybe give an example?

> I considered doing everything by tabs etc., but decided that it would be
> much better to embed a "line-wrap control code" in my description text.
> I just used "\0x01" which is a bit of a kludge but no worse that "the
> last tab".

The "last tab" rule is allready gone!


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at