Re: PATCH, RFC: 2.6 Documentation/Codingstyle

[Michael Frank <mhf@linuxmail.org>]

On Friday 13 February 2004 18:09, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> Michael Frank wrote:
> 
> >On Friday 13 February 2004 17:10, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Yes, 80 cols sucks and the world would be a better place had CodingStyle
> >>mandated 96 columns five years ago.  But it didn't happen.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >As to "five years ago", what about review the coding style situation before 
> >starting 2.7:
> >
> >In view of better hardware, increasing linelength a little to 96 could be 
> >considered without increasing the number of indentation levels.
> >
> >
> 
> I hope not, I usually use 80 columns. Email's using 80 columns.
> And lines start becoming difficult for the eyes to follow as they
> get longer. Maybe this isn't so much a problem with C code due to
> indentation and the sparseness of the lines.
> 

Just for consideration and nesting should _not_ be increased ;)

80 is quite OK but has not much margin and is asking for more lines
times with nesting of 3.	

0	1	2	3	4					        |<81
	
		printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning this is a long printk with "
						"3 parameters a: %u b: %u "
						"c: %u \n", a, b, c);
		next_statement;

		printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning this is a long printk with "
			"3 parameters a: %u b: %u "c: %u \n", a, b, c);
		next_statement;

96 is not excessive and will reduce linecount and often makes things more readable.

0	1	2	3	4								|<97

		printk(KERN_WARNING "Warning this is a long printk with 3 parameters "
							"a: %u b: %u "c: %u \n", a, b, c);
		next_statement;