From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2271 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2011 04:43:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 2263 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jan 2011 04:43:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 04:42:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66052BAB63; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 23:42:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 308xI3sPZvIr; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 23:42:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9CC2BAB47; Sun, 2 Jan 2011 23:42:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 58257145872; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:33:59 +0400 (RET) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 04:43:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: Eli Zaretskii , "hjl.tools@gmail.com" , "mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch] more comment cleanups Message-ID: <20110103043359.GO2396@adacore.com> References: <4D1E60A0.1020601@vmware.com> <201012312312.oBVNC4fc013647@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4D1E732E.4090002@vmware.com> <834o9tq96f.fsf@gnu.org> <4D1F71B0.9060006@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D1F71B0.9060006@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 > So what do others think about source lines over 70 columns? Enforcing a maximum length of 70 characters seems awfully low to me. It's fine if someone decides to use 70 characters for his comments, of even his code, but I think that 76 or 78 would give better results. I even allow myself to go up to 80 when splitting a line makes it particularly ugly and hard to read... -- Joel