On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 11:35:01AM -0400, J William Piggott wrote: > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in > >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >> > >> > > > > What about the mentioned whitespaces for puts() to get printf > > on one line? > > > > puts( _(" --update-drift update the RTC drift factor")); > > printf(_(" --noadjfile do not use %1$s\n"), _PATH_ADJTIME); > > printf(_(" --adjfile <file> use an alternate file to %1$s\n"), _PATH_ADJTIME); > > puts( _(" --test dry run; use -D to view what would have happened")); > > puts( _(" -D, --debug use debug mode")); > > Sure, if that is what Karel wants (it can be a separate patch). > > The only thing that I don't like about that choice is that it can cause > puts() lines to wrap that otherwise would not. Since puts() is a lot > more common than printf(), it seems like putting the alignment burden on > printf() makes more sense. I think the idea is to use the extra space only if you mix printf and puts in the same code block. We have on many place only puts (or fputs) -- in this case the extra space is unnecessary. Karel -- Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> http://karelzak.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
