On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:22:08PM +0800, Sebastian Nowicki wrote:
> Sometimes fitting within 80 characters is a bit hard (I'm not talking
> about scenarios with 4 nested loops - eww), in which case 90 or even 100
> characters would be more acceptable than breaking it up in some hideous
> way.
On 17/06/2008, at 9:34 PM, Loui wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:09:08 +0800
"Callan Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Loui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I made this patch after a little discussion on IRC.
Please comment.
Cheers!
I am definitely for this behavi
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:09:08 +0800
"Callan Barrett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Loui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I made this patch after a little discussion on IRC.
> > Please comment.
> > Cheers!
>
> I am definitely for this behavior, except perhaps that line
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Loui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I made this patch after a little discussion on IRC.
> Please comment.
> Cheers!
I am definitely for this behavior, except perhaps that line width
limit since we don't use terminals that cut off at 80 characters to
edit code anymore
I made this patch after a little discussion on IRC.
Please comment.
Cheers!From c44128db9c4c2efc644c303a37ec885cf2c47b32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Loui Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:03:16 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Remove all vim mode lines. Add HACKING file.
Signed-off-by:
