On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 9:16 PM, <felixc@felixcrux.com> wrote:
This matches my personal preference, but I don't know whether the original
behaviour was by design or if this style of spacing was already considered
and rejected.

There's at least three variations of this module that have been requested; and, oddly, everyone proposing a variant thinks that it is intuitively obvious that it's the only sensible one and wonders why nobody else ever considered it or if there's some technical reason why it's not already "the" implementation.

In other words, you should be providing an *alternative* instead of replacing the existing implementation, because your "obviously correct" is not obvious to everyone else.

--
brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine associates
allbery.b@gmail.com                                  ballbery@sinenomine.net
unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad        http://sinenomine.net