[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091218085858.029c5660.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:58:58 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
Cc: device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: [PATCH] scripts/checkpatch.pl: Change long line
warning to 105 chars
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:12:41 +0000 Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 03:37:00PM +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> > Not sure if that's long enough (maybe it is).
> > 132 looks like the next "natural" number.
>
> Well it's good that this thread has produced more examples where it's
> reasonable and acceptable to exceed 80 characters.
>
> What do people feel about files where the policy is to place all the
> parameters passed into a function on the same line, regardless of its
> consequent length?
Not good IMO. It's much easier to read something that is restricted in
width than to have to scroll/pan side to side.
(e.g., newspaper columns. Oops, what's a newspaper?)
> (What kicked this all off was a patch Mikulas submitted containing many
> long lines, one of which hits column 264. Personally, I dislike reading
> code with lines that wrap, but using a 132-column terminal width is
> fine.)
---
~Randy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists