[PATCH] Add utility to check for indentation in files or patches

[Simo]

On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 22:17 +1000, Martin Schwenke wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 07:51:56 -0400, Simo <simo at samba.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 20:48 +1000, Martin Schwenke wrote:
> > > It just seems to blow up on some commits with a traceback.  Can someone
> > > please explain what I'm doing wrong?  
> > 
> > Do you have 'indent' installed ?
> > I probably need to catch the exception better, I changed this part from
> > the original stuff, as it was using emacs ...
> 
> I didn't but I do now.  Much better!  Thanks!  :-)
> 
> A couple of things that we might not want:
> 
> * No space before or after binary operator
> 
>   We have "good" examples in README.Coding without spaces around binary
>   operators.  For example, in a for-loop and in a calculation involving
>   sizeof().
> 
> * Parenthesized return expression
> 
>   We don't have a rule against this.
> 
>   In all the simple cases, doing this is bad style.  However, for a
>   complex expression it might provide clarity.
> 
>   For example, in the same way that:
> 
>     x = (y.foo == z.bar);
> 
>   gains clarity from the parentheses, I think the following does too:
> 
>     return (y.foo == z.bar);
> 
>   Or, perhaps, the latter is against the guidelines because we should
>   be doing:
> 
>     ok = (y.foo == z.bar);
>     return ok;
> 
>   However, since we have access to y.foo and z.bar in a debugger, we
>   can easily check what the return value will be, so I think the
>   original is OK.
> 
>   Not sure...  :-)


Thanks,
I am updating the code to work with python3 (the original catered for
python 2.6 ...) and I will add measures to deal with your feedback too,
although I have to say I think I may prefer to keep both rules above as
 that's what indent also does ?
Otherwise I need to check how to suppress that in indent I guess.

But I'll look into it.

Simo.