On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 05:35:41PM +0200, Christof Mroz wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:12:38 +0200, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This 8 characters idea is completely arbitrary and IMO not an improvement
>> at all. Creating more and arbitrary rules is not good.
>
> I agree, but I saw some instances of code in HIPL using an indent of 8
> spaces so I assumed that was the right thing to do... well in this case,
> there's no need to change doc/HACKING I think.
Never assume that anything you see in HIPL is right just by virtue
of existing.
>>> @@ -553,6 +555,23 @@
>>>
>>> + /* opening '(' on next line if no argument fits */
>>> + yet_another_function_with_a_long_name
>>> + (a_function_with_a_long_name(NULL, &blah, 0xC0FFEE));
>>
>> This is not K&R style and completely counterproductive. You destroy the
>> visual cue that a string followed by an opening parenthesis gives you -
>> in K&R style you immediately know it's a function call, now you don't
>> anymore.
>
> I prefer the "dangling" opening parenthesis too
I do not prefer it, on the contrary.
Maybe the following part of the HACKING document is in need of rephrasing:
Long lines (>80 characters) should be broken at suitable places
where doing so improves readability.
--->
Long lines (>80 characters) should be broken at suitable places
if and only if doing so improves readability.
Is the latter clearer?
Diego
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~hipl-core
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~hipl-core
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
