From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 34254 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2019 20:41:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 34126 invoked by uid 89); 5 Dec 2019 20:41:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*c:alternative, card, screen, emails X-HELO: us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) (205.139.110.61) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 20:41:52 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1575578510; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=XLFO+L+zDfUIEfrig+6LgYKY8Jeqd0GhIWiZp72AVyo=; b=VoLPWC52E3XuulQ444vaagZ20DCslezeXunsFv16dh/2bRL6o+06GPfq1AvP2MDfX4oDU/ 1uqcymgI6+3w6jf9xfe7vrorT/D2EDTwx42lKICVnstmZoAZcGyZwBclTLOHZBOWvd2b7F 6KVVHmGx+PTzFT4TYxBB1qnKqhwC754= Received: from mail-ot1-f69.google.com (mail-ot1-f69.google.com [209.85.210.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-316-VzEiCigcMa6zm35KtJt3zA-1; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 15:41:48 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f69.google.com with SMTP id v13so2540750ote.8 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:41:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8be82276-81b1-817c-fcd2-51f24f5fe2d2@codesourcery.com> <20191205151515.GS10088@tucnak> <87lfrq6ahm.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: From: Jason Merrill Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 20:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Characters per line: from punch card (80) to line printer (132) (was: [Patch][OpenMP/OpenACC/Fortran] Fix mapping of optional (present|absent) arguments) To: Michael Matz Cc: Thomas Schwinge , gcc Mailing List , gcc-patches List , fortran@gcc.gnu.org X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00381.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:51 AM Michael Matz wrote: > Hello, > > (oh a flame bait :) ) > > On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > So, I formally propose that we lift this characters per line restriction > > from IBM punch card (80) to mainframe line printer (132). > > > > Tasks: > > > > - Discussion. > > I object to cluttering code in excuse for using sensible function names or > temporaries that otherwise can help clearing up code. Using 132-char > lines is cluttering code: > - long lines are harder to read/grasp: vertical eye movement is easier > than horizontal, and source code should be optimized for > reading, not writing > - long lines make it impossible to have two files next to each other at a > comfortable font size > - long lines are incompatible with existing netiquette re emails, for > instance > > So, at least for me, that my terminals are 80 wide (but not x24) has > multiple reasons, and the _least_ of it is because that's what punch cards > had. > Agreed. I work with two side-by-side terminals, one 80x50 and the other as wide as fits in the rest of the screen, which currently happens to be 111x50. Jason