On 31 mar 2011, at 20:58, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 3/31/11 1:39 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote: >>> I would love that and think that it would be a _big_ improvement, but there >>> are some folks (Andrei in particular) who seem to really not like code going >>> beyond 80 characters. I do know that there are other Phobos devs who _do_ >>> want >>> longer line lengths though, so maybe we can change this. Where this really >>> gets to be a problem is with lines with several levels of indentation, and >>> trying to restrict the line length (particularly to something short like 80 >>> characters) tends to encourage overly short and non-descriptive variable and >>> function names, which is _not_ good. >> >> Can't everyone that likes to keep the horizontal length to 80 characters use >> word wrapping? > > No, and please let's not take this one bit further.
So you just want to end the discussion when someone disagrees with you? > Regarding this: > >> I absolutely think that I function should fit within a page of code >> but the way to do that is NOT to write more compact code vertically. >> It's to split the function in several smaller ones, split the classes >> in smaller ones and split the modules smaller ones. That is clearly >> something that Andrei and Walter doesn't seem to understand. > > I'd opine that it's a bit assuming. Essentially it says that people who don't > code the way you like it are incapable of understanding elementary modularity. I can not understand how anyone can call a module containing 25k+ lines of code modular. > Thanks, > > Andrei > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos -- /Jacob Carlborg _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
