[PATCHv3 3/4] ldbl-128: Mechanical L(x) cleanup.

[Paul E. Murphy]

On 08/26/2016 05:18 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I don't see the point of these cleanups in patches 3 or 4. Adding spaces 
> inside L() to line up decimal points in tables of figures that are 
> inherently not human-readable doesn't seem like an improvement; the 
> important thing to be readable is the comments explaining semantics of the 
> tables of figures.  Adding L() mechanically has not made the formatting 
> any worse.
> 
> That said: some of the changes are to tables that clearly aren't formatted 
> according to the GNU Coding Standards (for example, have no indentation at 
> all).  In such cases, fixing to follow the GNU Coding Standards (which 
> typically means two-column indentation - again, no spaces inside L(), and 
> nothing to line up decimal points of positive and negative values) is 
> perfectly OK, it just has nothing to do with float128 support.

If that is the general opinion of these tables, I would rather drop
these patches.  The macros are mostly exaggerating formatting issues
already present.  Arguably, the existing violations may make it easier
to read in some opinions.