On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 06:53:50PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:55:05AM +0200, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 July 2017, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > > > On 07/04/2017 09:58 AM, Karel Zak wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > What about putting the strings on an extra line regardless whether > > > that is output via printf or fputf or ...; e.g. > > > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/du.c#n278 > > > ? > > > > Yes this is nice because easy to count that no usage output is longer > > than 80 chars. But I guess there are too many different opinions about > > these stylish things. I'd also like to have just one string and only > > one printf command for all options (like mkfs.cramfs.c). But this may > > cause more work for translators each time we add a new option. Don't > > know if that would be a real problem. > > The one line for one option is what we want and what has been > requested by translators years ago. I really don't like the example > from the coreutils. Sorry :-) More information: http://www.spinics.net/lists/util-linux-ng/msg07489.html 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
