On 23 Jun 2002 19:37:50 +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > blablabla_variablename = verlylongfunctionname( > argument1, argument2, argument3); > > or > > blablabla_variablename = > verlylongfunctionname(argument1, argument2, argument3); > > instead of > > blablabla_variablename = verlylongfunctionname(argument1, > argument2, > argument3); > > I don't really care about which is chosen. The code should just > be readable (the last version isn't if the argument list gets too > long; it also wastes a lot of space).
Not only this. When blablabla_variablename name is changed or verlylongfunctionname name is changed and replaced everywhere, only the first 2 syntaxes stay to be consistent, but not the last one. I think Olivier may add (c-set-style "k&r") and avoid the last syntax. > Mikhael, what do you think about this? You would better not know what I think about this. :) I don't use emacs or any other automatical indenter, only Enter and TAB. In my projects (and in all fvwm perl programs) I use "one TAB for every level" indentation, never spaces. I don't use TAB in the middle of line. My code is always equally structured with any TAB size from 2 to 20. I only see the first 80 chars of each line. For me number 80 is not magical, lines may be longer in some cases (say for the large TAB size). I myself use TAB size 3 or 8 (but any other value is good in my code). At the end for C sources I adapt to your coding style without exceptions. Regards, Mikhael. -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
