On 10/17/2011 01:16 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Paolo Carlini<paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 10/17/2011 12:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Thus clearly the documentation is wrong ;)
;-)
Not necessarily. Paolo does not say why that line was added.
I don't remember adding that line to change the default.
Indeed, as far as I can see, you added that line while *preserving* the
existing behavior and preparing the C++ variant of the pretty_print
machinery. Thus, AFAICS, 72 never existed anywhere and, strictly speaking,
there is nothing to *restore*.
I do not know what you mean by "there is nothing to restore".
Look at the other mail by Richard. The C pretty-printer *post*-dated
the C++ pretty printer.
Hey, I don't own viewcvs, of svn, for that matter, you could also dare
to help a bit with this crazy archeological task, can't you?!? I looked
back only untile 70777, and that point and a bit earlier there where
already no 72s around, thus, right *nothing to restore*. Now we are
learning that *even earlier* we had a 72. Fine. Now, after so many
years, are we ****really**** sure that our users would consider an
*improvement* a 72? I'm honestly not sure at all. Again, what the best
C++ front-ends around do, by default? I'm sincerely curious.
Paolo.
