From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26253 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2011 20:35:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 26194 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jan 2011 20:34:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:34:55 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329BC13015; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:34:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A8F8EB13; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:34:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D2232ED.3080406@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:35:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Kettenis CC: "brobecker@adacore.com" , "eliz@gnu.org" , "hjl.tools@gmail.com" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch] more comment cleanups References: <4D1E60A0.1020601@vmware.com> <201012312312.oBVNC4fc013647@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4D1E732E.4090002@vmware.com> <834o9tq96f.fsf@gnu.org> <4D1F71B0.9060006@vmware.com> <20110103043359.GO2396@adacore.com> <201101030804.p0384T2N020327@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <201101030804.p0384T2N020327@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00049.txt.bz2 Mark Kettenis wrote: >> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 08:33:59 +0400 >> From: Joel Brobecker >> >>> 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... > > 70 characters really isn't that low for comments that start in the > first column; look at a properly typeset book and count the number of > characters per line. However, I fully agree with you that it > shouldn't be strictly enforced. If for example, it means that you end > up wrapping a single line comment such that you end up with a single > word on the next line I strongly prefer not to wrap and keep the > comment on one line such that it takes up less vertical space. > > The same holds for code. If I can keep things on a single line, I'll > attempt to do so, even if it means I'll get a little bit closer to the > 80 character "hard" limit. It's one of the reasons I never believed > in running tools like indent to automatically format source code. OK, so at least we agree that there should be a "hard" limit at 80? Really 79, otherwise emacs will wrap it? I'd like to know that there is a "hard" limit, and I would like to do some fixups of lines that are now too long.