Hi! ;-P Jakub, thanks for furnishing me a fit occasion here:
On 2019-12-05T16:15:15+0100, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > [...] much more indented though, but you could > use a temporary, like: > tree nullarg = null_pointer_node; I object to cluttering the code by introducing temporary variables/names just for the sake of a few characters of screen width. Even if located close lexically, when reading the following code you still have to trace back from the 'nullarg' usage to its 'null_pointer_node' definition in order to figure out what a 'nullarg' might be: > if (present) > ptr > = gfc_build_conditional_assign_expr (block, present, > ptr, nullarg); > Another option would be shorten the name of the function, say > s/conditional/cond/. Likewise I object to "crippling" identifier names like that just for the sake of a few characters of screen width. (Here of course, "cond", or the existing "expr" might be fine abbreviations, but my point is about the general case.) > There were some discussions about lifting the 80 column restriction and bump > it to something like +-130, but nothing happened yet. Indeed. :-) In the relevant session at the GNU Tools Cauldron 2019, Michael Meissner stated that even he is not using a 80 x 24 terminal anymore, and that should tell us something. ;-) So, I formally propose that we lift this characters per line restriction from IBM punch card (80) to mainframe line printer (132). Nonwithstanding that, we should try to not overstrain that; deep indentation often is a sign that code should be split out into a separate function, for example. My point is just to avoid things like the two examples cited above. Also, I'm not proposing any mass-reformatting of the existing code, or re-writing all "expr" into "expression". Tasks: - Discussion. - Get agreement/make a decision (by means still to be determined). - Put suitable Emacs/Vim configuration files into the source tree? - Update coding style guidelines. Grüße Thomas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
