"John Stoffel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thinking about it more, I wonder if Krysztof is bitching more about
> the tab width of 8 characters? I know that it ticks me off,
> indenting by two spaces is plenty for me to follow the flow, along
> with Emacs and braces closure indication.
Well,
Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree, its easier on the eyes to have dense columns of text to read
> than having to scan all over the place.
Sure, though I don't propose writing 130 chars in each line. Tabs
don't need much scanning.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this
Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree, its easier on the eyes to have dense columns of text to read
than having to scan all over the place.
Sure, though I don't propose writing 130 chars in each line. Tabs
don't need much scanning.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this
John Stoffel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thinking about it more, I wonder if Krysztof is bitching more about
the tab width of 8 characters? I know that it ticks me off,
indenting by two spaces is plenty for me to follow the flow, along
with Emacs and braces closure indication.
Well, 8 might
On Friday 08 June 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
> Jeff> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:56:06PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> >> Thinking about it more, I wonder if Krysztof is bitching more about
> >> the tab width of 8 characters? I know that it ticks me off,
>
> Jeff> Even if he is, _that_ is
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 21:25 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 06:08:32PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > My big concern with the 80-column rule is that it discourages commenting.
>
> My concern with that logic is that encourages random, super-wide code
> lines that varies with
On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 21:25 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 06:08:32PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
My big concern with the 80-column rule is that it discourages commenting.
My concern with that logic is that encourages random, super-wide code
lines that varies with each
On Friday 08 June 2007, John Stoffel wrote:
Jeff On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:56:06PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Thinking about it more, I wonder if Krysztof is bitching more about
the tab width of 8 characters? I know that it ticks me off,
Jeff Even if he is, _that_ is definitely not
Jeff> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:56:06PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
>> Thinking about it more, I wonder if Krysztof is bitching more about
>> the tab width of 8 characters? I know that it ticks me off,
Jeff> Even if he is, _that_ is definitely not getting changed.
Oh sure... I know that part
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:56:06PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> Thinking about it more, I wonder if Krysztof is bitching more about
> the tab width of 8 characters? I know that it ticks me off,
Even if he is, _that_ is definitely not getting changed.
That was the very first item Linus wrote in
Jeff> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:44:57PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
>> I don't. I use a pair of 80x48 xterms or emacs windows side by side
>> on my monitor with a nice big clear easy to read font. Itty bitty
Jeff> That's pretty much what I do. For me at least, it's a more
Jeff> efficient use
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:44:57PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
> I don't. I use a pair of 80x48 xterms or emacs windows side by side
> on my monitor with a nice big clear easy to read font. Itty bitty
That's pretty much what I do. For me at least, it's a more efficient
use of screen real
Krzysztof> Perhaps we should drop that 80-column style and use some
Krzysztof> 120+? X or no X, almost all people now have more lines and
Krzysztof> columns on their displays than MDA 20 years ago.
I don't. I use a pair of 80x48 xterms or emacs windows side by side
on my monitor with a nice
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 06:08:32PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> My big concern with the 80-column rule is that it discourages commenting.
My concern with that logic is that encourages random, super-wide code
lines that varies with each coder. You are left to the mercy of he with
the widest
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Alistair John Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I personally buy the argument that 80 cols helps remind people that they've
>> used too many indentation depths and should redesign their code.
>> I think it's
>> a good thing to stick to where possible, even if
On Thursday 07 June 2007 18:46:25 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 08/06/07, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:17:18 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> > > Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
> >
On Thursday 07 June 2007 18:37:45 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why? My consoles are *all* still 80x24 text mode. It's only if I decide
> > to monkey with the settings (and why fix what isn't broken?) or when I'm
> > in X that I get a bigger screen than
On 08/06/07, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:17:18 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
> > disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why? My consoles are *all* still 80x24 text mode. It's only if I decide to
> monkey with the settings (and why fix what isn't broken?) or when I'm in X
> that I get a bigger screen than that.
>
> I think the general consensus on the 80 character
On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:17:18 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
> > disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
> > trim down to 80 columns.
>
> Perhaps we
Alistair John Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I personally buy the argument that 80 cols helps remind people that they've
> used too many indentation depths and should redesign their code.
> I think it's
> a good thing to stick to where possible, even if just from a design
>
On Thursday 07 June 2007 22:17:18 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
> > disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
> > trim down to 80 columns.
>
> Perhaps we
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
> disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
> trim down to 80 columns.
Perhaps we should drop that 80-column style and use some 120+?
X or no X, almost all
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:44:09PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:23:08 -0400
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:22:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
> > > disabled.
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:23:08 -0400
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:22:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
> > disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
> > trim
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:22:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
> disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
> trim down to 80 columns.
>
> Put it back into the right format and keep the overlong
The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
trim down to 80 columns.
Put it back into the right format and keep the overlong lines as the
result is also MUCH easier to read in this specific case.
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 06:08:32PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
My big concern with the 80-column rule is that it discourages commenting.
My concern with that logic is that encourages random, super-wide code
lines that varies with each coder. You are left to the mercy of he with
the widest text
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Alistair John Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally buy the argument that 80 cols helps remind people that they've
used too many indentation depths and should redesign their code.
I think it's
a good thing to stick to where possible, even if just from a
Jeff On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:44:57PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
I don't. I use a pair of 80x48 xterms or emacs windows side by side
on my monitor with a nice big clear easy to read font. Itty bitty
Jeff That's pretty much what I do. For me at least, it's a more
Jeff efficient use of
Krzysztof Perhaps we should drop that 80-column style and use some
Krzysztof 120+? X or no X, almost all people now have more lines and
Krzysztof columns on their displays than MDA 20 years ago.
I don't. I use a pair of 80x48 xterms or emacs windows side by side
on my monitor with a nice big
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:44:57PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
I don't. I use a pair of 80x48 xterms or emacs windows side by side
on my monitor with a nice big clear easy to read font. Itty bitty
That's pretty much what I do. For me at least, it's a more efficient
use of screen real estate,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:56:06PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Thinking about it more, I wonder if Krysztof is bitching more about
the tab width of 8 characters? I know that it ticks me off,
Even if he is, _that_ is definitely not getting changed.
That was the very first item Linus wrote in
Jeff On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:56:06PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote:
Thinking about it more, I wonder if Krysztof is bitching more about
the tab width of 8 characters? I know that it ticks me off,
Jeff Even if he is, _that_ is definitely not getting changed.
Oh sure... I know that part is
The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
trim down to 80 columns.
Put it back into the right format and keep the overlong lines as the
result is also MUCH easier to read in this specific case.
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:22:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
trim down to 80 columns.
Put it back into the right format and keep the overlong lines as
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:23:08 -0400
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:22:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
trim down to 80
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:44:09PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:23:08 -0400
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:22:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
disabled. Someone then came
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
trim down to 80 columns.
Perhaps we should drop that 80-column style and use some 120+?
X or no X, almost all
On Thursday 07 June 2007 22:17:18 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
trim down to 80 columns.
Perhaps we should drop that
Alistair John Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I personally buy the argument that 80 cols helps remind people that they've
used too many indentation depths and should redesign their code.
I think it's
a good thing to stick to where possible, even if just from a design
perspective.
How
On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:17:18 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
trim down to 80 columns.
Perhaps we should drop that
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why? My consoles are *all* still 80x24 text mode. It's only if I decide to
monkey with the settings (and why fix what isn't broken?) or when I'm in X
that I get a bigger screen than that.
I think the general consensus on the 80 character lines
On 08/06/07, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:17:18 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
disabled. Someone then came along and blindly trashed it by screwing up a
On Thursday 07 June 2007 18:46:25 Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 08/06/07, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:17:18 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The intel-rng printed a nice well formatted message when the port was
disabled.
On Thursday 07 June 2007 18:37:45 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why? My consoles are *all* still 80x24 text mode. It's only if I decide
to monkey with the settings (and why fix what isn't broken?) or when I'm
in X that I get a bigger screen than that.
46 matches
Mail list logo
