tests/syntax: sanitize whitespace

tests/syntax/line-input-max.bas

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ dim z as zstring ptr, pz as zstring ptr
 dim w as wstring ptr, pw as wstring ptr
 dim s as string, ps as string
 dim fz as zstring * 20, pfz as zstring * 20
-dim fw as wstring * 20, pfw as wstring * 20 
+dim fw as wstring * 20, pfw as wstring * 20
 
 t( 0, line input #1, s )
 t( 0, line input #1, fz )
@@ -73,14 +73,14 @@ t( 1, line input #1, fw, 10 )
 t( 1, line input #1, *z )
 t( 1, line input #1, *w )
 
-t( 1, line input p, s, 10 )   
+t( 1, line input p, s, 10 )
 t( 1, line input p, fz, 10 )
 t( 1, line input p, fw, 10 )
 
 t( 1, line input "", *z )
 t( 1, line input "", *w )
 
-t( 1, line input p, s, 10 )   
+t( 1, line input p, s, 10 )
 t( 1, line input p, fz, 10 )
 t( 1, line input p, fw, 10 )
 

tests/syntax/optional-parens.bas

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 #print "---"
 
 type T
-    i as integer
-    k as integer ptr
+	i as integer
+	k as integer ptr
 end type
 
 declare sub      s1( a as integer = 0 )
@@ -79,13 +79,13 @@ dim a as integer
 
 '' While it does seem inconsistent that the following is accepted
 '' with the '+' operator at a lower precedence that the
-'' call (), there is a bit of an explanation below: 
+'' call (), there is a bit of an explanation below:
 
 	s1 (a) + a
 
 '' the simple reason to allow it is that without this allowance
 '' we would be forcing use of '()' on every procedure call and
-'' well established syntax of optional parantheses would fail.   
+'' well established syntax of optional parantheses would fail.
 
 	locate (a + a) \ 2, 1
 
@@ -101,4 +101,4 @@ dim a as integer
 	f4 @(x).i
 
 	s1 *(x).k
-	f1 *(x).k
+	f1 *(x).k