Re: [RFC] Change coding style rule: 80 column "hard limit" for ChangeLogs

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

[apologies for the resend]

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>> AFAIK, that's because this is the default in Emacs's commands that
>> manipulate ChangeLog entries.  Here:
>>
>>   (define-derived-mode change-log-mode text-mode "Change Log"
>>     "Major mode for editing change logs; like Indented Text mode.
>>   Prevents numeric backups and sets `left-margin' to 8 and `fill-column' to 74.
>>   New log entries are usually made with \\[add-change-log-entry] or \\[add-change-log-entry-other-window].
>>   Each entry behaves as a paragraph, and the entries for one day as a page.
>>   Runs `change-log-mode-hook'.
>>   \n\\{change-log-mode-map}"
>>     (setq left-margin 8
>>         fill-column 74   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>         indent-tabs-mode t
>>         tab-width 8
>>         show-trailing-whitespace t)
>
> We can transparently override it, I think, since our ChangeLog entries have:
>
>> Local Variables:
>> mode: change-log
>> left-margin: 8
>> fill-column: 74
>> version-control: never
>> coding: utf-8
>> End:
>
> (to be confirmed, since I am no longer an emacs user).
>
> That being said, and fwiw only, I subscribe to the idea that 80
> characters is a little bit on the long side. I think it's a good
> idea to have one limit, and one limit only, but I'd prefer to
> make it closer to 70 than 80 - maybe 74 could be a good compromise.
> Ie, raise the soft-limit for the code to 74, leave the hard-limit
> to 80, and thus keep ChangeLogs as is.

That would not achieve the goal of one limit only,
unless ChangeLogs have a hard limit of 80, and 74 is the soft limit.

[I'm treating "hard" as "do not violate unless there's a compelling reason",
and "soft" as a guideline. btw, I can no longer think of that word without also
thinking of Pirates of the Caribbean. :-)]

> Other than the opinion above, it's not really all that important to me.
> So I'm good with whatever reasonable limit the group decides. We just
> need to make sure we document the decision, with reference to the
> discussion.

I'm not overly fond of anything below 80 (well, 79, but I certainly
don't reject patches that use 80).

Vertical space usage is not unimportant, and comments like this:

  /* Some comment, ... mumble
      it.  */

bug me when there's more than enough space to use one fewer line.
But if it's just a soft limit, then at least I can avoid it in my own patches.