Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> writes:Either they are rare and you can wrap them and still use 80 columns, or it turns out they are not so rare and you may want to use wider windows (not necessarily 132 but perhaps 100). I think the question isn't if they are rare or not, or if people have 3 * 1920 pixels/line or just 1280. The question is: is the code more readable with hard limit equal to 80 characters, or maybe is it better to limit code block complexity instead, and let the maximum number of those small pictures in a line alone? (Limiting at 132 would have technical sense IMHO). Better code readability = less bugs without any additional effort. Sure - because email is not C code. Actually you don't "read" C code, word by word, as you read books - do you? -- Krzysztof Halasa --
| Trent Piepho | [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code |
| Stoyan Gaydarov | From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7? |
| Andi Kleen | [PATCH] [4/50] x86: add cpu codenames for Kconfig.cpu |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 013/196] Documentation: Replace obsolete "driverfs" with "sysfs". |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: HTB accuracy for high speed |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
