Re: [PROPOSAL] Change of convention for multiline string literals

At 07:59 PM 3/18/2007 +0100, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>I have two small remarks on this patch:
>1. Why not use EOL instead of SVN_NL?

Where would the macro be declared so as to be visible through Subversion
itself but not visible to consumers? If there's a logical place to do that,
then it would certainly make sense to use EOL instead of SVN_NL, or
possibly even just NL.

>2. A lot of the lines ending with SVN_NL are now >80 characters. Now
>personally I don't care, and the guidelines in hacking allow that for
>large text messages, but maybe we can avoid it.

The only way to avoid it that I can think of (if shortening the macro is
insufficient) is to split those lines, which somewhat defeats the purpose
of this patch to line things up. Extremely long lines, though, might be
split something like this:

  "Short line" NL
  "Very long line that"
  " does not end until"
  " three lines down" NL

Are there any cases in particular where you think this should happen? I
don't think there are very many extremely long lines amidst much shorter
lines; the places that have long lines for the mostpart have a number of
them in sequence...

Jonathan Gilbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Mar 18 20:48:39 2007