[Freeciv-Dev] Re: possible addition to README.coding_style

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 11:56:13AM -0600, Mike Kaufman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:55:54PM +0100, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 10:30:49AM -0600, Mike Kaufman wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 12:10:22PM +0100, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 06:50:31PM -0600, Mike Kaufman wrote:
> > > > > here's a one-liner that will stop indent from mangling a lot of code.
> > > > > The guideline is 80 columns anyway (see the next line of the guide).
> > > > > It still won't be perfect, but it'll be a lot better.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch is mainly to stop me from getting _as pissed_ when Raimar
> > > > > decides to run indent...
> > > > > 
> > > > > so unless anyone vehemently objects...
> > > > 
> > > > Why? Get an editor with 80 columns (for example emacs) and load the
> > > > attached file (generated with "indent -kr -i2 -l80"). You will see
> > > > that in the long line you get a wrap around symbol. This is just ugly
> > > > and unnecessary. What is your problem with -l75 (which is activated by
> > > > -kr)?
> > > 
> > > hmm, interesting. vim doesn't do that (and I don't usually use emacs...)
> > > fine, I would accept -l79 (which emacs does handle ok).
> > > 
> > > my problem is that -l75 wastes 6.25% of the file, (and still 5% if you
> > > prohibit text in the 80th column, -l79) which is entirely unnecessary. 
> > > For something like unncessary braces---which I also object to in certain
> > > cases---at least they do increase readibility to some extent. -l75 
> > > decreases
> > > readibility. It is far easier to read a one line statement than to follow 
> > > it 
> > > on to a second line, especially if it's only a fragment as indent likes 
> > > to do.
> > 
> > I still prefer -l75. What about /* *INDENT-OFF*  */ and /* *INDENT-ON* */?
> 
> that's fairly silly, and completely destroys the purpose for which I
> want to do this: I'll give a few examples which truly grate me:
> 
>   gtk_box_pack_start(GTK_BOX
>                      (GTK_DIALOG(report_dialog->shell)->action_area),
>                      report_dialog->btn_delete, TRUE, TRUE, 0);
> 
> vs.
> 
>   gtk_box_pack_start(GTK_BOX(GTK_DIALOG(report_dialog->shell)->action_area),
>                      report_dialog->btn_delete, TRUE, TRUE, 0);

The first is one line larger. Anything else?


> I suppose you would want?
> 
>   /* *INDENT-OFF*  */
>   gtk_box_pack_start(GTK_BOX(GTK_DIALOG(report_dialog->shell)->action_area),
>                      report_dialog->btn_delete, TRUE, TRUE, 0);
>   /* *INDENT-ON* */

You can also mark a larger region (a function or file).

>     gtk_box_pack_start(GTK_BOX(peditor->shell), action_area, FALSE, FALSE,
>                        0);
> 
> vs.
> 
>     gtk_box_pack_start(GTK_BOX(peditor->shell), action_area, FALSE, FALSE, 0);

1) I don't thing that I will indent much GTK code in the next time.
2) What do other people think?

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  A supercomputer is a computer running an endless loop in just a second