From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@horizon.com Subject: Re: the war on trailing whitespace Date: 27 Feb 2006 20:07:15 -0500 Message-ID: <20060228010715.31275.qmail@science.horizon.com> X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 28 02:07:29 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FDtKq-0005Ct-BI for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:07:28 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751873AbWB1BHZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:07:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751874AbWB1BHZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:07:25 -0500 Received: from science.horizon.com ([192.35.100.1]:57929 "HELO science.horizon.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751873AbWB1BHZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:07:25 -0500 Received: (qmail 31276 invoked by uid 1000); 27 Feb 2006 20:07:15 -0500 To: git@vger.kernel.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: The only language I know of where the presence of whitespace on blank lines matters is make(1). Even there, it's subtle. It's okay to have (using "cat -e" syntax) foo : bar$ command$ $ command$ But there's a difference between foo : bar$ $ which specifies an empty command and will therefore not use a default rule, and foo : bar$ $ which does not specify any command and so will use a default rule if one exists. (Of course, you can also get [ \t]\n inside an arbitrary binary file, too.)