![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Apr. 06, 2008, 8:18 +0300, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 06:54:54 +0200 (CEST) Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de> wrote: > >> We all had the arguments about 80 columns, so here goes a relax. >> Checking for 95 (or perhaps something better?), but of course we >> print "80" in the output, because if you happened to get to 95, it's >> "really time" to break it. > > This will reduce the usefulness of checkpatch for those developers who > choose to observe an 80-column limit. > >> This also relaxes the tab doctrine, because spaces DO make sense -- >> especially when you view the code with a tab setting of not-8. > > Non-tab-using code inevitably ends up having a mix of tabs and non-tabs > and looks a mess if tabstops are set to anything other than eight. I humbly disagree. If you use tabs for (logical) indentation and then trailing spaces for (graphical) alignment, not just a random mix of tabs and spaces the code looks fine with 8-character wide tabs or any other setup. Only when you use tabs for graphical alignment, below fixed-width characters on the line above you marry yourself with a specific tab expansion width. Benny > > God I wish I had not been cc'ed on this. The idea is *not* to open the flood gates, just to allow for a bit more flexibility to accommodate for a more robust indentation style. > -- > 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-04-06 13:55 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||