The 80 rule is not going anywhere and the energy would be better spent
learning to live with it. It always takes effort to adjust to the new
environment, every one of us have gone through this and it didn't make
us or our code worse - other things did. The impact line width has on
the success
Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>
>BTW: I do not believe that code with > 79 characters is more readable
>but in a few exceptions, it is.
>
>What would happen if someone did write this:
>
> if (dp == ¬able) {
> /* BEGIN CSTYLED */
> printf("Manufacturer is unknown becau
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I am definitely not willing to be forced to reduce to 80 columns for all
> >cases.
> >BTW: 80 is elso wrong. If you like to be 100% correct, then you would need to
> >follow RFC-2822 and use 78 chars.
>
> This is source code, not email.
>
> I agree the limit is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >2. I did not say to reformat all existing code. I just asked for the
> >option to allow wider character widths on demand when it is usefull.
> >3. I do not expect that everyone will use all 52 (= 132 - 80) additional
> >characters to the full extend
>
> No, but I expec
>I am definitely not willing to be forced to reduce to 80 columns for all cases.
>BTW: 80 is elso wrong. If you like to be 100% correct, then you would need to
>follow RFC-2822 and use 78 chars.
This is source code, not email.
I agree the limit is arbitrary; but any limit is; as far as arbit
>You are wrong.
>1. Many of those tools support horizontal scrolling and continuation.
But many of the tools do not.
And horizontal scrolling does not help. It means that you can no
longer page through the code; you have to page in two directions.
>2. I did not say to reformat all existing cod
On Sat 04/01/06 at 17:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > By relaxing the limit to 132 characters you are *forcing* everybody to
> > switch to 132 wide xterms.
>
> You are wrong.
> 1. Many of those tools support horizontal scrolling and continuation.
> 2. I did not
James Carlson wrote:
>Keith M Wesolowski writes:
>
>
>>On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 05:44:14PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
I think you'll find that the C-style rules are not open for negotiation.
>>>What do other Sun engineers think about this ?
>>>
>>>
>>The s
Keith M Wesolowski writes:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 05:44:14PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
>
> > > I think you'll find that the C-style rules are not open for negotiation.
> >
> > What do other Sun engineers think about this ?
>
> The same.
I hate to do a "me too" posting but, well, "me too."
Erast Benson wrote:
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 23:14 +0530, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
Belenix. Then, update Firefox and ThunderBird from the
latest CVS or stable code. All done.
I was stuck with this for a week otherwise I'd have released 0.4.1
earlier. Firefox 1.5.0.1 built from the la
On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 23:14 +0530, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> > Belenix. Then, update Firefox and ThunderBird from the
> > latest CVS or stable code. All done.
> >
>I was stuck with this for a week otherwise I'd have released 0.4.1
>earlier. Firefox 1.5.0.1 built from the latest stable releas
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 05:44:14PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
> > I think you'll find that the C-style rules are not open for negotiation.
>
> What do other Sun engineers think about this ?
The same.
> Yes, I agree that using "cstyle" is a good idea and even that enforcing
> cstyle's rules is a
ken mays wrote:
After two days of getting to work with a copy of
Belenix 0.4.1, I noticed a slight backdraft of a few
apps which may have missed the update cycle or
wouldn't load. Still a great desktop and server
distro, I'll just list the obvious ones I noticed
today.
Don't get all twisted insi
Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Or to face code which is much less readable
> > than code formatted to fit 80 columns; 132 wrapped to 80 is just not
> > a pretty sight.
>
> I agree. But if you look at the existing code it's usually only a few
> extra characters which are needed to mak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Few minutes ago the issue came up in irc://irc.freenode.org/#opensolaris
> >why isaexec(1) does not use the isaexec(3C) function.
> >Attached is a patch
> >("solaris_usr_lib_isaexec_uses_isaexec_3c_function.diff.txt") which
> >fixes the problem.
> >
> >* Benefits of t
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Quite; many of our codereview tools expect a 80 columns output
> > and/or support side-by-side diffs.
> >
> > 132 side-by-side just doesn't work for many people.
>
> A noticable part of the code has become unreadable because of unneeded
> line
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >While working on the "isaexec" patch I stumbled over the following
> >issue:
> >-- snip --
> >% cstyle -pP isaexec.c
> >isaexec.c: 67: line > 80 characters
> >-- snip --
> >I'd like to propose to relax this limit, making 132 characters the
> >maximum line length in OS
After two days of getting to work with a copy of
Belenix 0.4.1, I noticed a slight backdraft of a few
apps which may have missed the update cycle or
wouldn't load. Still a great desktop and server
distro, I'll just list the obvious ones I noticed
today.
Don't get all twisted inside... just a few b
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> Quite; many of our codereview tools expect a 80 columns output
>> and/or support side-by-side diffs.
>>
>> 132 side-by-side just doesn't work for many people.
>
>A noticable part of the code has become unreadable because of unneeded
>line wraps done to match the 80
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quite; many of our codereview tools expect a 80 columns output
> and/or support side-by-side diffs.
>
> 132 side-by-side just doesn't work for many people.
A noticable part of the code has become unreadable because of unneeded
line wraps done to match the 80 character
>The group that wrote that book had a long debate about the 80
>character limit. But the majority a greed that 80 characters was
>important for readability, especially if you view the code outside of
>an IDE, which will be typical for this code base. Think about it,
>there is a good reason why t
> I'd like to propose to relax this limit, making 132
> characters the
> maximum line length in OS/Net.
> The 80 char limit is IMO outdated and it may be less
> annoying to use a
> slightly larger boundary here (the isaexec patch
> itself is no good
> example why the 80 char limit is bad, but there
I'm usually not an advocate to changing default behaviour -this truly has the
potential
to break a lot of scripts. Especially since on most systems, the majority of
scripts has
not been written locally, but imported from various sources.
I do agree though, that an easy way to group the output
I have to use the kernel debugger for a while to boot opensolaris (also nv36)
on my hp/compaq nc 8230.
Hopefully, someone is working on a fix ?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensol
>Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> While working on the "isaexec" patch I stumbled over the following
>> issue:
>> -- snip --
>> % cstyle -pP isaexec.c
>> isaexec.c: 67: line > 80 characters
>> -- snip --
>> I'd like to propose to relax this limit, making 132 characters the
>> maximum l
Martin Man wrote:
> Roland Mainz wrote:
> > My personal complaint is that they stuff everything into /usr/bin/. Unix
> > had some kind of "namespace" support via the elements in ${PATH} so
> > having package groups seperated into /usr/dt/bin/ (CDE), /usr/kde3/bin
> > (KDE3), /usr/xpg4/bin/ (XPG4 pe
>While working on the "isaexec" patch I stumbled over the following
>issue:
>-- snip --
>% cstyle -pP isaexec.c
>isaexec.c: 67: line > 80 characters
>-- snip --
>I'd like to propose to relax this limit, making 132 characters the
>maximum line length in OS/Net.
NO WAY.
>The 80 char limit is IMO o
Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While working on the "isaexec" patch I stumbled over the following
> issue:
> -- snip --
> % cstyle -pP isaexec.c
> isaexec.c: 67: line > 80 characters
> -- snip --
> I'd like to propose to relax this limit, making 132 characters the
> maximum line length
Hi!
While working on the "isaexec" patch I stumbled over the following
issue:
-- snip --
% cstyle -pP isaexec.c
isaexec.c: 67: line > 80 characters
-- snip --
I'd like to propose to relax this limit, making 132 characters the
maximum line length in OS/Net.
The 80 char limit is IMO outdated
Alan Burlison wrote:
> Roland Mainz wrote:
> >>> Does anyone have a clue what could be done here ?
> >> The perl build scripts assume that nothing other that perl puts files in
> >> the source directory, and when a SCM is in use this isn't the case.
> >
> > Is this harmfull or can I ignore the issu
30 matches
Mail list logo
