[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >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.....
>
> This is source code, not email.
>
> I agree the limit is arbitrary; but any limit is; as far as arbitrary
> limits go, 80 is just fine.
This is true for xterm with vi, but if you are arguing, with terminals and
standard tools:
- many terminals will forcibly line wrap or scroll if you hit column 80
- If the terminal supports insert char, you may work around this problem
- If you are on the last line you are lost
- my standard editor (ved) marks wrapped lines with a '\' at the last
colum. Editors that don't do this confuse, users and cause some bugs
I've already seen in files edited by Sun (long lines that look
like several indented lines).
Conclusion: if you argue with terminals, you would need to reduce the line
length to 79.
Try to run "cstyle -l79" on e.g. usr/src/cmd/format/*.c
> Another way to look at it is this: if you indented so far that you
> have only a few tabstops left, your code is show signs of being
> overly complicated.
You are just using my arguments here... but this is a discussion whether
lines are allowed to be sometimes longer.
Did you run cstyle on usr/src/cmd/vi/port/*.c?
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]
