Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Dave Tweed wrote:
> > Yes, the OP used hard tabs to indent his code, so it IS your client,
> > which apparently can't handle it.
>=20
> It probably can, but it's a question of where the tab stops were set. I
> have never set them deliberately in OE. I have no idea how its tab stops
> are set or where it inherits them from.
>=20
> However, the point is that there is no standard interpretation of tab
> characters, which is why they shouldn't be left in code you show others.

It doesn't matter what the "tab stops" are. As long as there is a tab
character there, there should be some visible evidence of it; otherwise,
OE is just broken.

The "standard interpretation" of tab characters is that they count as
whitespace, which is all we're concerned about here.

> > But it's easy enough in Outlook Express to view the raw source file
> > of an email message to check. Every time you carp about this without
> > checking first makes you look foolish.
>=20
> Leaving tabs in code is a well know stupidity. No, when providing free he=
lp
> I'm not going to go out of my way to check on various stupid things someo=
ne
> may have done in formatting their code. Someone asking a question here ma=
y
> not know about PICs, but they have some obligation to follow basic common
> sense, including not leaving tabs in code.

But your stated standard is what's acceptable to the standard Microchip
assembler, and the code as posted meets that standard. The fact that you ca=
n't
see that it meets that standard -- and then you complain about this to the
list, time after time, rather than simply ignoring the post altogether -- i=
s
what makes you look foolish.

If you can be bothered to post a reply, then you can be bothered to click
"View --> Message Source" (IIRC) first.

-- Dave Tweed
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.