Re: [docs] winedev: Update code columns limit (resend)
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, André Hentschel wrote: [...]
- Code is usually limited to 80 columns. This helps prevent - mailers mangling patches by line wrap. Also it generally + Code is usually limited to 100 columns. It generally
I'd prefer to keep the 80 columns recommandation. With 80 columns one can nicely fit files side by side on a laptop with a typical 1024 horizontal resolution whereas with 100 colums one would end up with the hair comb effect thus making the code unreadable. Also 100 seems close enough to 80 that I'm not sure it actually provides any of the benefits that longer lines are supposed to provide (if they are supposed to provide any). -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ The nice thing about meditation is that it makes doing nothing quite respectable -- Paul Dean
On 07/23/2011 05:02 PM, Francois Gouget wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, André Hentschel wrote: [...]
- Code is usually limited to 80 columns. This helps prevent - mailers mangling patches by line wrap. Also it generally + Code is usually limited to 100 columns. It generally
I'd prefer to keep the 80 columns recommandation.
+1 I have never seen a terminal emulator that defaults to anything other than 80 columns.
I believe Julliard already mentioned the column limit was bumped up (I believe it was actually 120?). 1024 resolution isn't exactly "typical" anymore, even for laptops - most developers I know actually have more than one screen nowadays. As for terminal emulators, they may default at 80 but that can always be changed. On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Andrew Eikum <andrew(a)brightnightgames.com> wrote:
On 07/23/2011 05:02 PM, Francois Gouget wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, André Hentschel wrote: [...]
- Code is usually limited to 80 columns. This helps prevent - mailers mangling patches by line wrap. Also it generally + Code is usually limited to 100 columns. It generally
I'd prefer to keep the 80 columns recommandation.
+1
I have never seen a terminal emulator that defaults to anything other than 80 columns.
On 7/23/11 3:33 PM, Andrew Eikum wrote:
On 07/23/2011 05:02 PM, Francois Gouget wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, André Hentschel wrote: [...]
- Code is usually limited to 80 columns. This helps prevent - mailers mangling patches by line wrap. Also it generally + Code is usually limited to 100 columns. It generally
I'd prefer to keep the 80 columns recommandation.
+1
I have never seen a terminal emulator that defaults to anything other than 80 columns.
This limit exists because of the old Hollerith cards. You can set the width of your terminal session to whatever you want as a default. James
On 07/23/2011 07:05 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
On 7/23/11 3:33 PM, Andrew Eikum wrote:
On 07/23/2011 05:02 PM, Francois Gouget wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, André Hentschel wrote: [...]
- Code is usually limited to 80 columns. This helps prevent - mailers mangling patches by line wrap. Also it generally + Code is usually limited to 100 columns. It generally
I'd prefer to keep the 80 columns recommandation.
+1
I have never seen a terminal emulator that defaults to anything other than 80 columns.
This limit exists because of the old Hollerith cards. You can set the width of your terminal session to whatever you want as a default.
James
The size of a Hollerith card is based on the size of a dollar bill at the time the standard was set. Dollars have shrunk in more than one sense since that time... Much more to the point is the number of characters that can fit on a (more or less) standard piece of paper. US standard paper is 8 1/2 inches wide and typewriter pitch was something like 10 characters per inch; with no margins, you get an 85 character line. Throw in 1/4 inch margins and you are down to 80. Similar calculations for A4 yield similar numbers. Other standard widths exist. 120 and 132 column formats have their traditional supporters. 72 columns is the usual text width on punched cards with 8 columns reserved for a sequence number field. (If you have ever dropped a 2000+ card program or data deck, you become a strong believer in sequence numbers!) So much for history. My personal preference is for an 80 column standard. That is large enough to allow a reasonable number of 4 column tab stops, and I can get two pages up on a good screen with some slack for scroll bars, boarders and other useful decorations. Wider and conflicts arise with the less expensive kinds of equipment. I've lived with the 80 column for more then 3 decades. It chafes a little at times, but ANY standard will irritate. Max 00000000011111111112222222222333333333344444444445555555555666666666677777777778 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
Am 24.07.2011 00:02, schrieb Francois Gouget:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, André Hentschel wrote: [...]
- Code is usually limited to 80 columns. This helps prevent - mailers mangling patches by line wrap. Also it generally + Code is usually limited to 100 columns. It generally
I'd prefer to keep the 80 columns recommandation.
With 80 columns one can nicely fit files side by side on a laptop with a typical 1024 horizontal resolution whereas with 100 colums one would end up with the hair comb effect thus making the code unreadable. Also 100 seems close enough to 80 that I'm not sure it actually provides any of the benefits that longer lines are supposed to provide (if they are supposed to provide any).
I see your point, but looking at the code it's already quite often around 100 and AJ also stated that 100 is more or less the actual limit. Otherwise i wouldn't have sent the patch. -- Best Regards, André Hentschel
André Hentschel wrote:
Am 24.07.2011 00:02, schrieb Francois Gouget:
On Mon, 4 Jul 2011, André Hentschel wrote: [...]
- Code is usually limited to 80 columns. This helps prevent - mailers mangling patches by line wrap. Also it generally + Code is usually limited to 100 columns. It generally I'd prefer to keep the 80 columns recommandation.
With 80 columns one can nicely fit files side by side on a laptop with a typical 1024 horizontal resolution whereas with 100 colums one would end up with the hair comb effect thus making the code unreadable. Also 100 seems close enough to 80 that I'm not sure it actually provides any of the benefits that longer lines are supposed to provide (if they are supposed to provide any).
I see your point, but looking at the code it's already quite often around 100 and AJ also stated that 100 is more or less the actual limit. Otherwise i wouldn't have sent the patch. Yepp, 100 is the preferred line length for Wine for over a year now. Personally I would have gone for 120 but Alexandre said that 100 is enough. So all my janitorial patches since then have cleaned up the line length to 100 en passant.
bye michael
participants (7)
-
Andrew Eikum -
André Hentschel -
Francois Gouget -
James McKenzie -
Jerome Leclanche -
max -
Michael Stefaniuc