Re: Updating line length guidelines

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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