From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Updating line length guidelines |
Date: | 2017-08-21 02:36:43 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTEKEtNea-_v88JDCtxU1hxfHgjeErqU5fLZce=OPGgJw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> We currently still have the guideline that code should fit into an 80
>> character window. But an increasing amount of the code, and code
>> submissions, don't adhere to that (e.g. copy.c, which triggered me to
>> write this email). And I mean outside of accepted "exceptions" like
>> error messages. And there's less need for such a relatively tight limit
>> these days. Perhaps we should up the guideline to 90 or 100 chars?
>
> Or maybe we should go the other way and get a little more rigorous
> about enforcing that limit. I realize 80 has nothing on its side but
> tradition, but I'm a traditionalist -- and I still do use 80 character
> windows a lot of the time.
+1. FWIW, I find the non-truncation of some error messages a bit
annoying when reading them. And having a 80-character makes things
readable. For long URLs this enforcement makes little sense as those
strings cannot be split, but more effort could be done.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-08-21 02:43:18 | Re: Updating line length guidelines |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-08-21 02:30:03 | Re: Updating line length guidelines |