From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24843 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2011 20:37:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 24834 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jan 2011 20:37:25 -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-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:37:17 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B530344004; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:37:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E41C9CE4; Mon, 3 Jan 2011 12:37:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D22337B.3070402@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:37:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Eli Zaretskii , "hjl.tools@gmail.com" , "mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl" , "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> <20110103160025.GR2396@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20110103160025.GR2396@adacore.com> 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/msg00050.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: >> If we go for a higher number and want to enforce it (and I'm not >> saying we should), we should try to add a suitable setting to the C >> source files (in the local variables section), or maybe provide a >> .dir-locals.el file, for the benefit of Emacs users. Of course, not >> everyone uses Emacs. > > I don't think we should enforce any number, but rather try to provide > a guideline. After Mark's email, I'd be happy to put the guideline at > 70 chars, and see how it goes. I realize that, in all fairness, it isn't > the most important issue to be discussing ;-). > Maybe a "guideline" (eg. 70), and a "hard limit" (eg. 80)?