Re: [PATCH] coding-style: Document 80 chars limit for line length

On 12/2/20 11:52 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:58:24PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> The idea is to have it like a soft limit: if possible then break >> lines, if not then have a long line instead of some creative >> approach. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com&gt; >> --- >>   docs/coding-style.rst | 14 +++++++++++++- >>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/docs/coding-style.rst b/docs/coding-style.rst >> index cfd7b16638..813128bfb6 100644 >> --- a/docs/coding-style.rst >> +++ b/docs/coding-style.rst >> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ around operators and keywords: >>       indent-libvirt() >>     { >> -    indent -bad -bap -bbb -bli4 -br -ce -brs -cs -i4 -l75 -lc75 \ >> +    indent -bad -bap -bbb -bli4 -br -ce -brs -cs -i4 -l80 -lc80 \ > > The indent tool enforces line length no matter what.... Yeah, it's not perfect, but I am no friend with gnu indent so I don't know how to specify hard and soft limits and quick skim through manpage did not suggest it's possible. > >>              -sbi4 -psl -saf -sai -saw -sbi4 -ss -sc -cdw -cli4 -npcs -nbc \ >>              --no-tabs "$@" >>     } >> @@ -141,6 +141,18 @@ further, by piping it through ``expand -i``, since >> some leading >>   TABs can get through. Usually they're in macro definitions or >>   strings, and should be converted anyhow. >>   +The recommended length for lines is 80 characters, but common sense >> +should prevail. It may get tricky around some names (because of how >> +Libvirt constructs names for functions/enums/etc.) > > but this is a mere recommendation. > > IMHO we should say > >   "The maximum permitted line length is 100 characters, but lines >    should aim to be approximately 80 characters." > > and then use -l100 for indent Works for me. Thomas, since you suggested we document this, does this wording sound reasonable to you? If so, I will post v2.