[m-dev.] for review: cleanup of type_ctor_infos, relative diff 1

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On 09-Mar-2000, Zoltan Somogyi <zs at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> On 08-Mar-2000, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > > +:- type module_sub_info --->
> > > +	module_sub(
> > 
> > That change does not match the layout conventions documented
> > in the "Layout" section of our Mercury coding standard.
> 
> No, but it does avoid several 

That sentence was unfinished. I meant to say that keeping the previous level of
indentation would have made several lines too long, and would have prevented
the lining up of the field types (which another part of the coding standard
requires).

In general, when you have some long field names and some long types,
having the coding standard require starting the line with *three* tabs
is excessive. Especially given that the requirement that the types start in
the same column means that the longest field name and the longest type must
fit on the *same* line.

Zoltan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------