On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 12:32:24PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > TBH, 79 vs. 80 isn't normally something I'd worry about when reviewing > new code. But I know in the past people have asked for 79 to be used > for the “end+1” reason, so I don't think we should “fix” existing code > that honours the 79 limit so that it no longer does, especially when the > lines surrounding the code aren't changing.
The normal rule is you cannot go over 80. It is perfectly fine to have shorter lines, certainly if that is nice for some other reason, so automatically (by some tool) changing this is Just Wrong. Segher
