On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 10/17/2011 12:26 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Paolo Carlini<paolo.carl...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> FWIW, I still believe that tweaking the documentation to match the long >>> standing reality, would be a small improvement. I'm not going to further >>> insist, anyway. >> >> It isn't improvement. >> The improvement would be to restore the documented default. > > Well either my English is even weaker than I thought, or "restoring" doesn't > apply here: the line of code at issue, pp_set_line_maximum_length (pp, 0), > has been added by Gaby in Rev 70777, and nothing similar with 72 as second > argument existed before.
Looking at the changset, now I remember: That line was part of a change set that was improving the *C* pretty-printer I added earlier and to maximize sharing more cose between the C and C++ pretty printers. The zero length was added as an attempt to respect the *C* front-end desire not have line wrapping. Richard talked about other front-ends, but at the time, there was only two front-ends who were using the pretty printers: C and C++. The C front-end was adopting bits of the C++ front-end. Every other front-end were doing whatever they wanted. It wasn't like there was a bit debate with other front-ends to decide what the default should be for all.