Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:01:11 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Coding Style On 2015-04-07 14:45, Kai Zhao wrote: >> BTW I am tempted to officially have Jumbo deviate from core's tab width >> recommentdation, using 4 instead of 8. With the "indent with TABs, align >> with spaces" requirement (which I'm prepared to kill for) this only >> affects how long a line gets[*]. > >> Also, I think we should document that we use "tab for indent, space for >> align" as in http://emacswiki.org/emacs/SmartTabs. > > Do you prepare to kill the rule "tab for indent, space for align" ? On the contrary I said I'm prepared to kill FOR it. Not literally of course - if it turns out I'm the only one here that understands the beauty of "tab for indent, space for align", I can live with not aligning at all (that is, just indenting one (1) more level). >> I can relate to that and for core this is a good decision. But in Jumbo >> we live with lots of external things: Macros like >> CL_DEVICE_PREFERRED_VECTOR_WIDTH_CHAR and functions like >> clCreateProgramWithBinary(). Not to mention AMD's ADL. We get crazy >> long lines without writing code that should be split to more functions. >> Actually for OpenCL host code I often just give up and let it span >> several lines. > > Do you think we can solve this problem by allowing to exceed column 80 > in such cases while the tab-width is still 8-character? I think we should tell whatever indent-like program we end up using, that we use a tab width of 4 and prefered max-width of 80-columns. Then for a tab width of 8, we'll exceed 80 by some amount that will not likely end up more than Solar's suggested 132. magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.