On 7/9/07, Bryan Cantrill <bmc at eng.sun.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:13:16PM +0200, William James wrote:
> > On 7/9/07, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote:
> > > Josh Hurst writes:
> > > > On 7/4/07, Peter Memishian <peter.memishian at sun.com> wrote:
> > > > > * 113-143: Please reformat to be 80-column friendly.
> > > >
> > > > Why? It may be appropriate for the 60' of the last century but today
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Because the style guide says so:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/documentation/getting_started_docs/cstyle.ms.pdf
> >
> > That are Sun rules, not Opensolaris rules. It seems archaic today to
> > have a 50 year old punch card-style 80-column limit. Computers use
> > silicon chips, not vacuum tubes. Punch cards have been obsoleted,
> > operating systems use more than 640k, disks can hold more than 4GB. I
> > think the Slashdot article is right: A 80-column limit is history.
>
> I hasten to point out the irony that you decry the 80-column limit, and
> yet you carefully keep your screed to within that very same limit...
So what? It's the default for GMail and I can't change it. That
doesn't mean that source code in Opensolaris must emulate limits of
obsolete hardware from the last century or an email software where the
authors forgot to provide a tunable
Cheers,
William
--
@,,@ William James
(\--/) williamjamesgnusolaris at gmail.com
(.>__<.) GNU/Solaris hacker
