Vincent, why didn't you fix the thing silently?
Because if I did, I would need to correct all your future patches/commits.
This discussion will set a rule
that (whatever it will be!) will make me crazy!
Discussion or not the rule will be there.
I was just joking. This
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Anyway, 100 is probably fine, I lost that kind of battle already in
other places ;-|
anyone around strongly against 100-char wide rule?
No. 70 to 80 is what I've seen often recommended for a text to be
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
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char limit
is a pita ?
another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
but i find the two lines better. you don't?
pavel
diff --git a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiToolbar.cpp
On 04/05/2011 19:38, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char limit
is a pita ?
another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
but i find the two lines better. you don't?
Part of the two exceptions:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
On 04/05/2011 19:38, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char
limit
is a pita ?
another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
but i find the two lines better. you don't?
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
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...
In the case of the LYXERR0 exception: I don't care about these
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char
limit
is a pita ?
another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
but i find the two lines better. you don't?
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
but i find the two lines better. you don't?
Which do you like better ?
string const name = fromqstr(objectName());
visibility = guiApp-toolbars().defaultVisibility(name);
or
visibility =
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
but i find the two lines better. you don't?
Which do you like better ?
string const name = fromqstr(objectName());
Vincent, why didn't you fix the thing silently?
Because if I did, I would need to correct all your future patches/commits.
This discussion will set a rule
that (whatever it will be!) will make me crazy!
Discussion or not the rule will be there.
I was just joking. This
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>> Anyway, 100 is probably fine, I lost that kind of battle already in
>> other places ;-|
>
> anyone around strongly against 100-char wide rule?
>
No. 70 to 80 is what I've seen often recommended for a text
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
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char limit
> is a pita ?
another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
but i find the two lines better. you don't?
pavel
diff --git a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiToolbar.cpp
On 04/05/2011 19:38, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char limit
is a pita ?
another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
but i find the two lines better. you don't?
Part of the two exceptions:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 19:38, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>> Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
>>> Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char
>>> limit
>>> is a pita ?
>> another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
>> but i find the two lines
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"
>
>
> > 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...
>
>
In the case of the LYXERR0 exception: I don't care about
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> > Show me an example where it would be necessary and where the 80 char
> limit
> > is a pita ?
>
> another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
> but i find the two lines better.
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> > another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
> > but i find the two lines better. you don't?
>
>
> Which do you like better ?
>
> string const name = fromqstr(objectName());
> visibility = guiApp->toolbars().defaultVisibility(name);
>
> or
>
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
> > > another example which just jumped at me. its not strictly pita
> > > but i find the two lines better. you don't?
> >
> >
> > Which do you like better ?
> >
> > string const name =
venom00 wrote:
The patch looks pretty good now, so I'll put it in my testing tree.
I'm not completely sure of the red highlighting. Red is a color for errors,
I'll
try green, yellow and maybe bold.
Moreover I want to add the rubber button.
Just a last nitpick: we try to keep the
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 18:23:50 Pavel Sanda wrote:
btw is it still worth to keep this rule as the displays are wider and
wider? what was the rationale behind?
pavel
But our brains are not. ;-)
There are several reasons associated, we should avoid to nest too much our
code, if we have a 5
On 03/05/2011 19:36, José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 18:23:50 Pavel Sanda wrote:
btw is it still worth to keep this rule as the displays are wider and
wider? what was the rationale behind?
pavel
But our brains are not. ;-)
There are several reasons associated, we should avoid to
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 07:23:50PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
venom00 wrote:
The patch looks pretty good now, so I'll put it in my testing tree.
I'm not completely sure of the red highlighting. Red is a color for errors,
I'll
try green, yellow and maybe bold.
Moreover I want to add
Andre Poenitz wrote:
btw is it still worth to keep this rule as the displays are wider and wider?
what was the rationale behind?
To enable working on the code without line wrapping.
otoh it allows one logical step on one line and function has 10 instead of 20
lines...
And I think it
José Matos wrote:
There are several reasons associated, we should avoid to nest too much our
code, if we have a 5 nested levels it becomes increasingly difficult to read
the code.
i didnt want to use 5 nested levels.
With widespread pages it is difficult to read any text, be it code or
On 03/05/2011 20:43, Pavel Sanda wrote:
José Matos wrote:
There are several reasons associated, we should avoid to nest too much our
code, if we have a 5 nested levels it becomes increasingly difficult to read
the code.
i didnt want to use 5 nested levels.
With widespread pages it is
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 19:43:07 Pavel Sanda wrote:
well i dont read the code as a text. for example the second case
looks much more usefull for me, since its 2x smaller in vertical
sense and my eyes go through the code faster.
Since you asked...
honestly it seems unreadable in both cases. :-)
José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 19:43:07 Pavel Sanda wrote:
well i dont read the code as a text. for example the second case
looks much more usefull for me, since its 2x smaller in vertical
sense and my eyes go through the code faster.
Since you asked...
honestly it seems
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I don't care so much about the 80 chars limit but certainly we should set
on
some limit and try to follow for the reasons above.
100? :)
No. But Qt's connect can be considered as an exception IMO.
and what about the lyxerr oneliners (which were the real trigger
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 19:49:59 Pavel Sanda wrote:
nice way how to avoid answer :)
pavel
If it were me I would do it like this:
connect(table,SIGNAL(rowsChanged(int)), rowsSB,
SLOT(setValue(int)));
connect(table,SIGNAL(colsChanged(int)), columnsSB,
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 08:43:07PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
José Matos wrote:
There are several reasons associated, we should avoid to nest too much our
code, if we have a 5 nested levels it becomes increasingly difficult to
read
the code.
i didnt want to use 5 nested levels.
On 03.05.2011 20:18, Andre Poenitz wrote:
And I think it still makes a lot of sense, as people are known to place
several editor side by side to use the full width of their new screens...
Those people have two screens ;)
Peter
If it were me I would do it like this:
connect(table,SIGNAL(rowsChanged(int)), rowsSB,
SLOT(setValue(int)));
connect(table,SIGNAL(colsChanged(int)),
columnsSB, SLOT(setValue(int)));
connect(rowsSB, SIGNAL(valueChanged(int)),table,
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:43:40PM +0200, venom00 wrote:
We need a limit, 100 is perfect IMSO [1].
venom00 (is sure someone here is still developing on terminal)
Terminal or not (which I do use around 50% of the time) is not the full
picture, as one can have split editors in some IDEs, too
Terminal or not (which I do use around 50% of the time) is
not the full
picture, as one can have split editors in some IDEs, too (and that's
perhaps 20% of the remaining 50% for me...)
That's true, otherwise I'd have suggested more than 100 chars.
[1] In My Selfish Opinion, that is, given
venom00 wrote:
My opinion is: who is still developing on a terminal? :P
that would be me. p
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Anyway, 100 is probably fine, I lost that kind of battle already in
other places ;-|
anyone around strongly against 100-char wide rule?
pavel
Vincent, why didn't you fix the thing silently?
Because if I did, I would need to correct all your future patches/commits.
This discussion will set a rule
that (whatever it will be!) will make me crazy!
Discussion or not the rule will be there.
There is no way you will be able to
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Anyway, 100 is probably fine, I lost that kind of battle already in
other places ;-|
anyone around strongly against 100-char wide rule?
pavel
YES, me !
Show me an example where it would be necessary
venom00 wrote:
> > The patch looks pretty good now, so I'll put it in my testing tree.
>
> I'm not completely sure of the red highlighting. Red is a color for errors,
> I'll
> try green, yellow and maybe bold.
> Moreover I want to add the "rubber" button.
>
> > Just a last nitpick: we try to
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 18:23:50 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> btw is it still worth to keep this rule as the displays are wider and
> wider? what was the rationale behind?
>
> pavel
But our brains are not. ;-)
There are several reasons associated, we should avoid to nest too much our
code, if we have a
On 03/05/2011 19:36, José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 18:23:50 Pavel Sanda wrote:
btw is it still worth to keep this rule as the displays are wider and
wider? what was the rationale behind?
pavel
But our brains are not. ;-)
There are several reasons associated, we should avoid to
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 07:23:50PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> venom00 wrote:
> > > The patch looks pretty good now, so I'll put it in my testing tree.
> >
> > I'm not completely sure of the red highlighting. Red is a color for errors,
> > I'll
> > try green, yellow and maybe bold.
> > Moreover
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > btw is it still worth to keep this rule as the displays are wider and wider?
> > what was the rationale behind?
>
> To enable working on the code without line wrapping.
otoh it allows one logical step on one line and function has 10 instead of 20
lines...
> And I think
José Matos wrote:
> There are several reasons associated, we should avoid to nest too much our
> code, if we have a 5 nested levels it becomes increasingly difficult to read
> the code.
i didnt want to use 5 nested levels.
> With widespread pages it is difficult to read any text, be it code or
On 03/05/2011 20:43, Pavel Sanda wrote:
José Matos wrote:
There are several reasons associated, we should avoid to nest too much our
code, if we have a 5 nested levels it becomes increasingly difficult to read
the code.
i didnt want to use 5 nested levels.
With widespread pages it is
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 19:43:07 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> well i dont read the code as a text. for example the second case
> looks much more usefull for me, since its 2x smaller in vertical
> sense and my eyes go through the code faster.
Since you asked...
honestly it seems unreadable in both cases.
José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 May 2011 19:43:07 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > well i dont read the code as a text. for example the second case
> > looks much more usefull for me, since its 2x smaller in vertical
> > sense and my eyes go through the code faster.
>
> Since you asked...
> honestly it
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>> I don't care so much about the 80 chars limit but certainly we should set
>>> on
>>> some limit and try to follow for the reasons above.
>> 100? :)
>
> No. But Qt's connect can be considered as an exception IMO.
and what about the lyxerr oneliners (which were the
On Tuesday 03 May 2011 19:49:59 Pavel Sanda wrote:
> nice way how to avoid answer :)
> pavel
If it were me I would do it like this:
connect(table,SIGNAL(rowsChanged(int)), rowsSB,
SLOT(setValue(int)));
connect(table,SIGNAL(colsChanged(int)), columnsSB,
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 08:43:07PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> José Matos wrote:
> > There are several reasons associated, we should avoid to nest too much our
> > code, if we have a 5 nested levels it becomes increasingly difficult to
> > read
> > the code.
>
> i didnt want to use 5 nested
On 03.05.2011 20:18, Andre Poenitz wrote:
And I think it still makes a lot of sense, as people are known to place
several editor side by side to use the full width of their new screens...
Those people have two screens ;)
Peter
> If it were me I would do it like this:
>
> connect(table,SIGNAL(rowsChanged(int)), rowsSB,
> SLOT(setValue(int)));
> connect(table,SIGNAL(colsChanged(int)),
> columnsSB, SLOT(setValue(int)));
> connect(rowsSB, SIGNAL(valueChanged(int)),table,
>
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:43:40PM +0200, venom00 wrote:
> We need a limit, 100 is perfect IMSO [1].
>
> venom00 (is sure someone here is still developing on terminal)
Terminal or not (which I do use around 50% of the time) is not the full
picture, as one can have split editors in some IDEs, too
> Terminal or not (which I do use around 50% of the time) is
> not the full
> picture, as one can have split editors in some IDEs, too (and that's
> perhaps 20% of the remaining 50% for me...)
That's true, otherwise I'd have suggested more than 100 chars.
> > [1] In My Selfish Opinion, that is,
venom00 wrote:
> My opinion is: who is still developing on a terminal? :P
that would be me. p
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Anyway, 100 is probably fine, I lost that kind of battle already in
> other places ;-|
anyone around strongly against 100-char wide rule?
pavel
>
>
> Vincent, why didn't you fix the thing silently?
Because if I did, I would need to correct all your future patches/commits.
> This discussion will set a rule
> that (whatever it will be!) will make me crazy!
>
Discussion or not the rule will be there.
There is no way you will be able
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Anyway, 100 is probably fine, I lost that kind of battle already in
> > other places ;-|
>
> anyone around strongly against 100-char wide rule?
> pavel
>
YES, me !
Show me an example where it would
62 matches
Mail list logo