On Apr. 06, 2008, 8:18 +0300, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
quoted text
> 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

quoted text
> 
> 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.

quoted text
> --
> 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/

--
unsubscribe notice
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/