On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Randy Dunlap wrote: > 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?) I don't like scrolling too but most viewers and editors wrap it automatically to screen width. For example, restrict your terminal to 50 columnts and try using "less". Mikulas -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
