On Tuesday, March 15, 2011 18:04:05 Tomek CEDRO wrote: > - /* Set Data Bits High Byte > - disable output drivers */ > +/* Set Data Bits High Byte disable output drivers */
i think you missed the point with these comments. they were wrapped that way on purpose, not because they were over the 80 col limit. > /* Set Data Bits High Byte set all to input */ > urj_tap_cable_cx_cmd_push (cmd_root, SET_BITS_HIGH); > urj_tap_cable_cx_cmd_push (cmd_root, BITMASK_ARMUSBOCD_nTRST | > BITMASK_ARMUSBOCD_nTRST_nOE | BITMASK_ARMUSBOCD_nTSRST); i'm not a huge fan of the 80 col limit which is why personally i use it more as a soft limit depending on the circumstances. but this case you've decided to use is a pretty bad one. i cant say that what you're proposing with these is an improvement at all. my screen is fairly unusual at ~170 cols and this almost exceeds it. the issue isnt purely "people have big screens and so can view a lot". while true many people have big screens, some like to split it up into multiple windows. and no, "people have multiple monitors" isnt acceptable :P. some limit needs to be picked, and someone will complain regardless of what that limit is, so 80 is about as good as any. if your code is bumping up against that, then perhaps the code needs restructuring. or just use common sense ... i'm not going to complain about an overrun of a few chars here and there. > (i hope gmail did not wrap the lines) it did -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
_______________________________________________ UrJTAG-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/urjtag-development
