Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!jade!ucbcad!ames!hao!oddjob!mimsy!cvl!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: documentation standards........
Message-ID: <6606@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 29-Oct-87 23:27:22 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6606
Posted: Thu Oct 29 23:27:22 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Nov-87 05:33:07 EST
References: <9897@brl-adm.ARPA> <913@sugar.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <913@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>is really irrelevant. It would be nice if you can indent the body of your
>functions, though:

Quite right, discussion of personal stylistic preferences is a waste
of network bandwidth.  On the other hand, there can be practical
reasons for some aspects of coding style.  For example, if identifiers
for function definitions occur against the left margin but most other
text is indented, then it is easy with most text editors to quickly
jump to the beginning of any function whose name is known, or to
grep a set of sources to find out which one defines the function (as
opposing to calling it).