I never voted for 4! I vote for consistency. But I'm personally a big fan of 2. And a 100-ish column screen width! (hi pablo)
gse On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, P T Withington wrote: > Scott, please explain yourself. 4 seems wasteful. > > Long lines are considered harmful, no matter how wide your average screen. > Have you read the Times lately? > > On 2006-07-25, at 13:36 EDT, Benjamin Shine wrote: > > > > > 4! 4! 4! > > Which I only say after having Scott slap me around repeatedly for doing it > > wrong. > > I used to be into 3, myself. > > While we're at it, DARE WE come up with a line length recommended limit? > > Pablo uses > > 80 and maybe you hardcore oldskoolers do, but please, have you seen the size > > of the standard screen lately? Show me a coder who doesn't have at least > > 1280 across and I'll show you... um. > > > > On Jul 25, 2006, at 7:05 AM, P T Withington wrote: > > > > > After the 'grand class conversion', Phil and I plan to re-indent the > > > LFC sources. [Right now Phil is making the conversion trying to > > > minimize the whitespace changes to make it easy to review. Once we > > > have tested and verified that it all works, we plan to re-indent.] > > > > > > Looking over the LFC sources, we have some code that is indented with > > > 4 spaces and some with 2. Do we care? My personal preference is 2 > > > -- it's enough to be visually distinct without being wasteful. But most > > > of the sources (and apparently most editors) default to 4. We > > > have a change to make things uniform. > > > > > > Vote your choice today! > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Laszlo-dev mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev > > > > benjamin shine > > software engineer > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
