[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

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

From: Jonathan Gilbert <o2w9gs702_at_sneakemail.com>
Date: 2007-03-19 04:12:17 CET

At 06:14 PM 3/18/2007 -0500, I wrote:
>At 10:00 PM 3/18/2007 +0100, Peter Lundblad wrote:
>>Jonathan Gilbert writes:
>>> Here is my thinking:
>>> 1. Screen space today is cheap -- sufficiently so that I don't have a lot
>>> of sympathy for people who insist on hacking in 80x25 text-mode and then
>>> complain that code takes up too much space. :-)
>>Yuck! Being a person whodaily hack inn 80x1 format, I don't exactly
>>agree that screen space is that cheap.
>I'd assert that it is pretty rare for 80x1 to be the *only* available
>format... Even people who use ed or vi more often than not do so in
>resizable X terminals.

Peter: I just thought I'd explain myself. I was completely unaware of your
alternate mode of interaction with the computer. I had wrongly assumed that
by 80x1 you were referring to the propensity for certain editors to only
scroll the line containing the cursor. I feel a bit foolish now.

I just want to say again for the record that I really honestly have no
intention of changing the standards to do with line lengths. I had seen a
few cases in the code as I was preparing my patch where lines that formed
part of multiline string constants exceeded 80 characters, so I had come to
the conclusion that it was permitted in that particular context. As was
mentioned by others, hacking.html does specifically allow for this, but it
also expresses the primary intent of keeping the majority of the code
within 79 characters per row.

In light of this, I would like to revise my proposal to suggest that the
macro be named either EOL or NL (to keep it as short as possible), that it
be defined in a Subversion-internal header so that it is not visible to
outside code (as it lacks the SVN_ prefix that would otherwise keep it from
polluting the namespace), and that the EOL or NL tokens be lined up so that
they terminate in the 79th column. In the event that a line of text really
cannot be broken up and it is long enough that the EOL or NL token could
not be lined up in this manner with at least 2 characters of separation
from the text, the EOL or NL should be placed wherever the end of that
particular line is with the two spaces of separation.

Is this an agreeable proposal?

Jonathan Gilbert

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 19 04:12:59 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.