Hi, On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 12:00:13AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@web.de wrote: > Keep in mind that this convention stems from a time where people > actually used to *print* code, on a 80 column line printer... So it was > important to strictly observe the limit back then. Nowadays, screens are > large enough that a) nobody feels the urge to print out code, and b) > nobody has a reason to stick to 80 columns when viewing on screen.
Actually, two 80 column terminals fit nicely side by side on a 1280 pixel wide screen with a reasonable font size. ;-) > Of course, very long lines can be hard to read; so depending on the > content, breaking is still often advisable. However, there are many > cases where breaking too soon adds nothing to readability, and even > makes it worse. Pretty much all the cases you nagged about fall in this > category IMHO... I don't feel my suggestion would hamper readability. While they do break up some nicely grouped arguments, the "orphaned" argument is a variable with a name which clarifies its purpose in most if not all cases. > So unless there is a pedantic upstream who won't accept patches not > strictly conforming to a fixed column number, I'm *strongly* against > observing it too closely. I don't believe I observed it too closely in except a few cases, but I'll try to be more lax next time. Regards, Fredrik
