On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:12:41 +0000 Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 03:37:00PM +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > > Not sure if that's long enough (maybe it is). > > 132 looks like the next "natural" number. > > Well it's good that this thread has produced more examples where it's > reasonable and acceptable to exceed 80 characters. > > What do people feel about files where the policy is to place all the > parameters passed into a function on the same line, regardless of its > consequent length? Not good IMO. It's much easier to read something that is restricted in width than to have to scroll/pan side to side. (e.g., newspaper columns. Oops, what's a newspaper?) > (What kicked this all off was a patch Mikulas submitted containing many > long lines, one of which hits column 264. Personally, I dislike reading > code with lines that wrap, but using a 132-column terminal width is > fine.) --- ~Randy -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
