Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932158AbWAEXCF (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:02:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932156AbWAEXCF (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:02:05 -0500 Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk ([213.162.97.75]:5842 "EHLO mail.metronet.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932158AbWAEXCE (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:02:04 -0500 From: Alistair John Strachan To: Kay Sievers Subject: Re: 80 column line limit? Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 23:02:09 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060105130249.GB29894@vrfy.org> In-Reply-To: <20060105130249.GB29894@vrfy.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601052302.09317.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1860 Lines: 42 On Thursday 05 January 2006 13:02, Kay Sievers wrote: > Can't we relax the 80 column line rule to something more comfortable? > These days descriptive variable/function names are much more valuable, > I think. > > 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. I've found myself drifting to and from favouring the 80 cols limit in my own code. It's a good way of forcing yourself to refactor, which usually works out nicely, and I've even managed to write Java that was mostly 80 cols (which is a far bigger challenge than C due to the required preceding tab depth for a method inside a class..) > We even use #defines sometimes to access simple structure members and > the like, only to fit that rule. This is usually for multiple levels of dereferencing, and it really does help readability. > 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? It's fairly redundant trying to answer this question without the opinion of the people that really matter. I'd hazard a guess and say that if you ranked kernel contributors by man-hours spent on the kernel, the top ten would all think the 80 columns rule was critically important. -- Cheers, Alistair. 'No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.' Third year Computer Science undergraduate. 1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK. - 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/