Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Or to face code which is much less readable
> > than code formatted to fit 80 columns; 132 wrapped to 80 is just not
> > a pretty sight.
>
> I agree. But if you look at the existing code it's usually only a few
> extra characters which are needed to make the code MUCH more readable.
>From my viewpont, this is the most important issue here....
> Yes, I agree that using "cstyle" is a good idea and even that enforcing
> cstyle's rules is a good thing. I did not argue that. My primary
> complait is the fixed line length which is very ugly. We're not in the
> days of Fortran 77 anymore... or are we ?
To give some background imformation:
I do not like several of the rules from cstyle. Even though, I did convert all
my code to conform to them just because cstyle is the only tool that allows you
to judge about indentation alt all and because the style enforced by Cstyle is
very close to what I use after trying out several other indentation styles.
I test all my code against "Cstyle" which is my variant of "cstyle":
cstyle -l133 -b -K -B "$@"
I am willing wo use -l132 ;-)
Note:
-l # set maxline length (default is 80)
-b do not check for blank after cpp #
-K do not check for blank at /* */ comment bounds
-B allow /*------- box comments
Mi impression is that in case that the rules are made a bit more forgiving (as
done in my "Cstyle" more people may be convinced to use them.
I am definitely not willing to be forced to reduce to 80 columns for all cases.
BTW: 80 is elso wrong. If you like to be 100% correct, then you would need to
follow RFC-2822 and use 78 chars.....
Now think again: How many files from Sun would become unreadable by _this_
requirement?
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
