Hi! first of all, I should say hi to everybody, since I'm new to the list. I hope this is the correct mailing list to send a patch against the website (according to the page about bug reporting, it should be). During the last past few days, I've been reading about Boost at the website because I'm interested in using it in one of my projects. I must say that the website is great. It has lots of information and is well organized. Anyway, while doing so, I've came across some broken links to the CVS access information. (As well as some typos, but I have to re-find them...) They point to the obsolete (according to the logs) download.html file, while they should be pointing to getting_started.html. I've attached a patch which corrects this. BTW, vim warned me saying that the files I changed in the patch do not have a newline at the end. It added one automatically, but I've removed that chunk from the patch. Is this behavior expected? IMHO, the newline should be there (otherwise, cat <file> looks ugly). Kind regards, -- Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com> http://www.livejournal.com/users/jmmv/ The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/
On Saturday 19 February 2005 06:33 am, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
first of all, I should say hi to everybody, since I'm new to the list.
Welcome!
I hope this is the correct mailing list to send a patch against the website (according to the page about bug reporting, it should be).
Yes, it is.
They point to the obsolete (according to the logs) download.html file, while they should be pointing to getting_started.html. I've attached a patch which corrects this.
Thank you. I've checked it into CVS, but it won't show up on the Boost site for a little while.
BTW, vim warned me saying that the files I changed in the patch do not have a newline at the end. It added one automatically, but I've removed that chunk from the patch. Is this behavior expected? IMHO, the newline should be there (otherwise, cat <file> looks ugly).
I've added back the new lines. Doug
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:33:29PM +0100, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote: Hi Julio,
BTW, vim warned me saying that the files I changed in the patch do not have a newline at the end. It added one automatically, but I've removed that chunk from the patch. Is this behavior expected? IMHO, the newline should be there (otherwise, cat <file> looks ugly).
I think that is expected, yes. Vim always adds newlines to text files, because as you say, it's usually the right thing to do. I think if you start vim in binary mode (vim -b) then it doesn't add a newline. Hope that helps, jon -- "Burn the b'st'rds" - The JAMs
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 14:10 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:33:29PM +0100, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
Hi Julio,
BTW, vim warned me saying that the files I changed in the patch do not have a newline at the end. It added one automatically, but I've removed that chunk from the patch. Is this behavior expected? IMHO, the newline should be there (otherwise, cat <file> looks ugly).
I think that is expected, yes. Vim always adds newlines to text files, because as you say, it's usually the right thing to do.
Hmm well, I think I explained it incorrectly. What I wanted to ask is if not having newlines is the expected thing to do in boost's files. I.e., if they shouldn't be really there. But as Douglas added them, it looks like it is not (so they should be added when noticed).
I think if you start vim in binary mode (vim -b) then it doesn't add a newline.
Oh, good to know. Thanks, -- Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com> http://www.livejournal.com/users/jmmv/ The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/
participants (3)
-
Douglas Gregor -
Jonathan Wakely -
Julio M. Merino Vidal