Re: Setting tab length universally
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 03:30:46PM +1000, Andrew Sione Taumoefolau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was just wondering if there was some method of universally setting tab
> width. I find eight spaces a bit too much, and although I have found
> methods of changing it in some applications, it'd be nice if I could
> change it in one place and never have to worry about it again. Advice or
> pointers to some Ms to Fing R would be much appreciated :).
i wondered the same thing. i think the only approach would be to
establish a vt100-like setup string that plants console tabs
every so often...
that said, the rest of the world does expect tabs to be 1+mod8
(i.e. 1, 9, 17, 25, 33...) -- but if the focus of tabs is to
help indent code, then use one tab per level of indent, and let
the 8-char-tab purists watch their dislpays wrap to hell and
back. i've been using 4-per-tab a lot and it works well.
the trouble comes when you use nonstandard tab stops and then
try to align a column to the right of uneven text:
it nicely 4-char-tab : but this
lines on rxvt : is likely
up my window : to suck
bad practice, mixing tabs and spaces. pick one and stay there.
(i vote heavily for tabs, as they're settable -- indent to
timbuktu and back if you like [despite what the purists say
about programs needing to stay no deeper than three levels] and
adjust your tab width to accomodate your display needs. your
recipients can do the same. and in vim you can include
'modelines' [see :help modeline] to pre-set nonstandard tabs for
you: "#!/usr/bin/perl vim:ts=4" for example...)
--
DEBIAN NEWBIE TIP #19 from Dave Sherohman <esper@sherohman.org>
:
How do you determine WHICH NETWORK SERVICES ARE OPEN (active)?
Try "netstat -a | grep LISTEN". To see numeric values (instead
of the common names for services using a particular port) then
try "netstat -na" instead. For more info, look at "man netstat".
Also try "lsof -i" as root. "man lsof" for details.
=Will Trillich <will@serensoft.com>
Also see http://newbieDoc.sourceForge.net/ ...
Reply to: