From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
Cc: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>,
"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
"fortran@gcc.gnu.org List" <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>
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)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 17:03:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdRxXmjv5w7QzQwwqez4f46rAL417v9tfoyyAauVBP1eFg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1912051634470.24095@wotan.suse.de>
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 16:44, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> 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.
C++17 introduces a nice feature, with rationale similar to declaring
variables in a for-loop init-statement:
if (auto var = foo(); bar(var))
The variable is only in scope for the block where you need it, just
like a for-loop.
Unfortunately nearly every time I've tried to use this recently, I've
found it's impossible in 80 columns, e.g. this from yesterday:
if (auto __c = __builtin_memcmp(&*__first1, &*__first2, __len) <=>
0; __c != 0)
return __c;
When you're forced to uglify every variable with a leading __ you run
out of characters pretty damn quickly.
I can either not use the feature (and have the variable defined in a
larger scope than it needs to be) or add fairly arbitrary line breaks:
if (auto __c
= __builtin_memcmp(&*__first1, &*__first2, __len)
<=> 0; __c != 0)
return __c;
or try to give the variables shorter (and less meaningful) names.
Adding line breaks or picking shorter names doesn't help readability.
So I end up not using the feature.
I'm loosely in favour of relaxing the rule for libstdc++ code. I don't
really care what the rest of GCC looks like ;-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-05 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <8be82276-81b1-817c-fcd2-51f24f5fe2d2@codesourcery.com>
[not found] ` <20191205151515.GS10088@tucnak>
2019-12-05 15:47 ` Thomas Schwinge
2019-12-05 16:04 ` Jakub Jelinek
2019-12-05 20:21 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-05 16:17 ` Joseph Myers
2019-12-05 16:24 ` Paul Koning
2019-12-05 16:40 ` Jeff Law
2019-12-05 16:55 ` [RFC] Characters per line: from punch card (80) to line printer (132) Florian Weimer
2019-12-05 17:55 ` Andrew Stubbs
2019-12-05 18:12 ` Eric Gallager
2019-12-05 18:22 ` Robin Curtis
2019-12-05 19:16 ` James Secan
2019-12-06 9:22 ` Andrew Stubbs
2019-12-05 16:44 ` [RFC] Characters per line: from punch card (80) to line printer (132) (was: [Patch][OpenMP/OpenACC/Fortran] Fix mapping of optional (present|absent) arguments) Michael Matz
2019-12-05 17:03 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
2019-12-05 18:07 ` Marek Polacek
2019-12-05 20:06 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-05 20:38 ` Marek Polacek
2019-12-05 22:02 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-05 20:56 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-12-05 22:19 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-05 22:34 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-12-05 22:37 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-12-05 23:02 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-05 17:29 ` N.M. Maclaren
2019-12-05 20:12 ` Segher Boessenkool
2019-12-05 20:41 ` Jason Merrill
2019-12-05 18:54 ` [RFC] Characters per line: from punch card (80) to line printer (132) Martin Sebor
2019-12-05 20:32 ` Segher Boessenkool
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAH6eHdRxXmjv5w7QzQwwqez4f46rAL417v9tfoyyAauVBP1eFg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=fortran@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=matz@suse.de \
--cc=thomas@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).