| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4B66B2BB.9050909@farnz.org.uk> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:53:47 +0000 From: Simon Farnsworth <simon@...nz.org.uk> To: Alexander Clouter <alex@...riz.org.uk> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch.pl: remove the 80 charactes punch card limit Alexander Clouter wrote: > Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote: >>> The time of 80 characters punch card and terminals are over, so i would >>> be a good thing to set the line length limit to 120. Every display today >>> should be able handle this. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net> >> Full Ack! >> > NACK Attack! > > There is a reason Knuth only put so many words on a line with TeX. > If you're going to cite Knuth as a reason for the 80 character per line limit, you should understand the difference between ribbon length and line length. While there are good reasons to constrain the number of characters in a ribbon, and to prohibit too much of a shift in indentation between two neighbouring lines, there's no particularly strong readability reason to limit a line to 80 characters. Thus, assuming that maintainers read the patches they're sent, and apply a bit of common sense (insisting on sensibly sized ribbons, and getting grouchy about deep indentation), an 80 character line length limit isn't needed. -- Simon -- 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