Re: [9fans] samuel

[forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 502 bytes --]

actually, quite apart from the understandable desire to
have improvements in the programming environment,
i have to say that given C's syntax, i still find
	static int
	burble(stuff)
	{
easier to spot at a glance than
	static int burble(stuff)
	{
even when the aim is not to grep for things, but perhaps
that's just me.  i thought lcc was
a good program, but i found it harder to read for that reason.
(i know, i know, i could use something that
puts the function names in chartreuse.)


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1998 bytes --]

To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] samuel
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:13:49 +1300
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20020311101349.00998010@pop3.clear.net.nz>

>Samuel didn't make the grade.  If it had, I think it would still be
>around.
>
Fair enough. I'd just like some way to find function definitions without
changing the way I lay them out. grep ^nurdge *.c does have the appeal of
simplicity, but I don't like adjusting my style to suit the machine.