On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:43:05PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> > > anyone around strongly against 100-char wide rule?
> >
> > YES, me !
>
> hmm, i should also count caps lock and exclamation marks when doing
> next emoticons statistics... :)
>
> > "Normal Code" please, so don't come up with 20 connects beneath each other
> > or the like.
>
> i admit that this thread is not spin off from normal code. i just dont
> recognize how:
>
> LYXERR(level, "blabla" << x->variable << "blablabla"
> << y->var << "blabla" << z->variable);
>
> is more readable than
>
> LYXERR(level, "blabla" << x->variable << "blablabla" << y->var << "blabla" <<
> z->variable);
Ok. This shows here as:
---------------------------------- snip -----------------------------------
> i admit that this thread is not spin off from normal code. i just dont recogn
ize how:
>
LYXERR(level, "blabla" << x->variable << "blablabla"
<< y->var << "blabla" << z->variable);
is more readable than
LYXERR(level, "blabla" << x->variable << "blablabla" << y->var << "blabla" <<
z->variable);
---------------------------------- snip -----------------------------------
Including the break within "recognize".
Given that kind of context, would you accept that the first version is
"preferable"?
> that said if you agree on those few exception from 80 rule then i'll be
> satisfied with such outcome of our flame.
Exempting certain constructs from the rule seems to be more platable
then to drop the rule completely...
Andre'
