>You are wrong. >1. Many of those tools support horizontal scrolling and continuation.
But many of the tools do not. And horizontal scrolling does not help. It means that you can no longer page through the code; you have to page in two directions. >2. I did not say to reformat all existing code. I just asked for the >option to allow wider character widths on demand when it is usefull. >3. I do not expect that everyone will use all 52 (= 132 - 80) additional >characters to the full extend No, but I expect they will be used very quickly. >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. But *only* if you use 132 columns terminals. >The problems I've seen to far are string literals. Another bunch of good >examples could be found in mozilla.org's (see content/ and layout/ - an >enforcement of the ON cstyle would have devastating effects for the >maintability of the code) and KDE's codebase. We're not expecting other code to change; code which is Cstyle clean should remain that way. And we have used exceptional formatting for string literals before. (Such as not indenting the string.) >> I think you'll find that the C-style rules are not open for negotiation. > >What do other Sun engineers think about this ? I would be surprised if they do not agree. >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 ? It's there for a reason; using > 80 columns will make it less readable for many, not more readable. Casper _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
