From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-66295-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15776 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2003 18:15:16 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 15256 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2003 18:14:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2003 18:14:54 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GHkOB28396;
	Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:46:24 -0500
Received: from localhost.redhat.com (vpn50-47.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.47])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h0GIEja19135;
	Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:14:45 -0500
Received: from redhat.com (law@localhost)
	by localhost.redhat.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h0GIH3cQ009871;
	Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:17:14 -0700
Message-Id: <200301161817.h0GIH3cQ009871@localhost.redhat.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.redhat.com: law owned process doing -bs
To: Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr>
cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Reply-To: law@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Thoughts on doxygen for internal documentation 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:03:13 +0100."
             <200301161803.h0GI3DYV018983@mururoa.inria.fr> 
From: law@redhat.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:11:00 -0000
X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00776.txt.bz2

In message <200301161803.h0GI3DYV018983@mururoa.inria.fr>, Theodore Papadopoulo
 writes:
 >
 >
 >law@redhat.com said:
 >> I'll note that /** is contrary to the GNU coding standards. 
 >
 >Not really answering in this thread, but this kind of comment make me 
 >often wonder whether these coding conventions are sometimes reviewed 
 >and updated. The world is changing around us, the rules should change 
 >accordingly....
 >
 >As an example, I always wondered why the rule of 80 columns is still
 >that strict. IMHO often code can be more readable using longer lines
 >(still with a reasonnable limit, just an higher one).  Yes I know, some
 >people still have a very old 80 columns VT100, but those cannot be 
 >that many ? Indeed, mail reader sometimes have this 80 limit constraints,
 >but then problems with line wrapping by mailers happen also with 80 
 >columns... So why keeping this constraints and not updating it to 
 >something more sensible such as eg 132 colums.
I've known GCC hackers  (who shall remain nameless) who didn't use
graphical displays.  Instead they used 24x80 screens and linux's 
virtual terminals.  Hell, I still do it myself when traveling.

jeff