From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7600 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2011 13:25:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 7589 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2011 13:25:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05 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; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:25:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFE62BAB1B; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:25:28 -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 cCBZKETEkkJw; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:25:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241D62BAB1A; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:25:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D9A6C1459AD; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:25:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:59:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [RFA] Evening up the right margins Message-ID: <20110112132527.GD2504@adacore.com> References: <4D2D1D4B.9070509@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D2D1D4B.9070509@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/msg00256.txt.bz2 > Mark and Joel, I'm especially interested in your feedback. I think some are bettter, and some are worse. I agree that shortening some of the lines seem to make the paragraph more visually pleasing, and perhaps easier to read. However, I also think that it has made some of the lines a little harder to read. For instance: + The GNAT encoding used to describle the array index type evolved a + bit. Initially, the information would be provided through the Here, you split "a" from "bit". I tend to avoid that. This is not a mandatory practice, and I learnt it many years ago when, I think, I was reviewing the typographical practices recommended by the "Bibliotheque de France". My take on this is that changes that reduce the line length should be made if you think that the result is easier to read/better, or if it exceeds the 80 columns. If we agree than 70 characters is the guideline (I feel like argument for 74 to match the ChangeLog, but let's not until we spend more time following the current 70), then I think it's fine to leave things as is. The following is a matter of taste, so just my preference: > + error (_("Fixed-point values must be " > + "assigned to fixed-point variables")); If you can fit the entire string on one line and still not exceed the 80 characters limit, I personally prefer everything on the same line. I suppose it will stick out a little, if we mostly follow the 70 characters guideline, but it's easier to read. Not a strong opinion, however. Comments of the following format are not complient, however, and should be fixed: /* Line 1 * Line 2 * Line 3 */ I can take care of the ada-* part, but I'm going to be a little busy over the next few days... -- Joel