On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:16:47AM -0500, Josh Sled wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 23:46 -0500, David Hampton wrote:
> > -l80 Line width of 80.
>
> This one I find problematic. I understand the arguments for it, and
> have made them myself. But identifiers and type names are just too long
> these days. An 80-char limit can cause frequent and unnatural
> line-breaking; I think 100-char limit is more realistic.
>
> I do think a 80-char limit is a good guideline ... but an unbroken
> (e.g.) 95-character line is better than an 80-character line followed by
> a 15-character line.
>
> See the attached example of over-zealous wrapping differences of
> gnc-plugin-page-register.c.
>
> If we persist, I think we should have a convention for where the '='
> goes, and that is at the beginning of the next line (like other
> "continuing" operators).
Let me speak up in favor of the 80-char limit. However, I'm okay with
treating it as "strongly encouraged" rather than rigorously enforced.
I'm sympathetic that, sometimes, overrunning the 80-char limit is less
unreadable than some of the obvious line-wrapping alternatives.
In order to make the overruns as rare as practical, I think we should:
1) encourage the use of the static functions prefixed with the "acronym-ed"
name of their gtype "receiver". e.g. gppr_close_helper() instead of
gnc_plugin_page_register_close_helper(); and
2) encourage wrapping after the open parenthesis, e.g.:
foo_is_a_short_name = but_these_names_are_rather_too_long(
argument1, argument2, argument3, argument4);
Do the ident settings permit 2)?
-chris
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
