Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751001AbWAEN1Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:27:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751184AbWAEN1Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:27:25 -0500 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.193]:18264 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751001AbWAEN1Y convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:27:24 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Iwqd/ItH9Zfe2tTWJlH5nogIpG0rJb3pbUqF1T7NkT+k7XU4oV0TA2vp8f0uF1dU4+euKljuJtv+8wxiHjCnaqSD7xH9QAltwX/PDP4S4LpwKoIX+xLit593z4a9aiL9ceMk7ZHCUG5KzEye/uo0ilR97WP4ZLBZ0bs4jHKX0ZM= Message-ID: <9a8748490601050527x407ff85dref45774d5eb131d9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 14:27:23 +0100 From: Jesper Juhl To: Kay Sievers Subject: Re: 80 column line limit? Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060105130249.GB29894@vrfy.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060105130249.GB29894@vrfy.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2160 Lines: 53 On 1/5/06, Kay Sievers wrote: > Can't we relax the 80 column line rule to something more comfortable? Please don't. I very often work in console (or xterm) and editing kernel code. Files with lines >80 col. are quite annoying to have to scroll left/right in and not being able to see the end of lines. Also, very long lines are annoying to read even if they do fit on your screen, I can easily fit code lines of 200 chars or more in a GUI editor in X but IMO readability suffers compared to when that long line is broken up into a few shorter pieces - less horizontal eye movement. > These days descriptive variable/function names are much more valuable, > I think. > Short names can be descriptive too, and long names are not nice to have to type all the time. Besides, if you need a long description of a variable or function then use a comment don't try and encode everything into the name. > Just by looking at random examples in the tree, seems the 80 column > rule does more harm than good. I always find myself start shortening > names just to fit the line limit and not to need to line-wrap a statement. Sure, if you name variables like "int temporary_place_holder" instead of simply "int tmp" and similar, then 80cols are annoying, but I'd say the problem there is not the line length limit but the name being used. Short and sweet is my preference. > We even use #defines sometimes to access simple structure members and > the like, only to fit that rule. > > So, are we sure that 80 columns is still valuable, looking at the > side-effects of artificially shortended variable/function names and > line-wrapped statements, caused by this rule? > IMHO it's a good rule and we should stick to it. -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/