On 04/13/2016 06:11 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Your approach encapsulates the logic for rejecting this situation within should_warn_for_misleading_indentation, rather than at the callers, which is arguably better for modularity (similar to how we already call it for "do", which is then always rejected).So your patch looks good to me (I don't have formal approval rights for this though).
I'll ack it, I also thought it looked reasonable. Bernd
