At Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:31:00 +0200,
Rene Herman wrote:
>
> >>> -CS4236_DOUBLE("Master Digital Playback Switch", 0, CS4236_LEFT_MASTER, CS4236_RIGHT_MASTER, 7, 7, 1, 1),
> >>> -CS4236_DOUBLE("Master Digital Capture Switch", 0, CS4236_DAC_MUTE, CS4236_DAC_MUTE, 7, 6, 1, 1),
> >>> +CS4236_DOUBLE("Master Digital Playback Switch", 0,
> >>> + CS4236_LEFT_MASTER, CS4236_RIGHT_MASTER, 7, 7, 1, 1),
> >>> +CS4236_DOUBLE("Master Digital Capture Switch", 0,
> >>> + CS4236_DAC_MUTE, CS4236_DAC_MUTE, 7, 6, 1, 1),
> >> I can't say I'm personally a fan of these kinds of changes. The point of
> >> them would supposedly be to make the code more readable but as far as I
> >> am concerned it does the reverse.
> >>
> >> I know that Takashi can be an 80-column fundamentalist so I'll not
> >> object I guess. I'd personally like these (all) restored to a single
> >> line but if he doesn't, so be it.
> >
> > Exactly. It was done for Takashi.
>
> Yes, he overrides. I'd try to get away with just saying no though. That
> checkpatch thing desperately needs a clue.
Well, I still prefer folding lines to fit 80-column - of course
only if the result is somewhat reasonable and more readable.
Usually, you set the ter
minal with 80-column, an
d, longer lines are diff
icult to read.
With appropriate line-
breaks, it becomes far
easier to read.
Takashi (love 80's)
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
