Just curious to know what people's policies are on line length
of source files, and setting of emacs fill-column (for
filling comments with M-q), especially in group developments.
When 80x24 terminals were common, I guess it was usual to set
fill-column to 78. Nowadays, with an emacs 21 frame horizontally
split into two windows, font "fixed", and 40 pixel wide WindowMaker
application dock icons on a 1024x768 monitor, it seems you have
to go down to fill-column 74 to avoid horizontal scrolling.
Or do you not bother to stay within the 74 (or so) mark and just
type to whatever length you please, forcing others to use
a maximum width emacs window to be able to read your source
files without having to scroll horizontally?
··········@yahoo.com (Pratibha) writes:
> Just curious to know what people's policies are on line length
> of source files, and setting of emacs fill-column (for
> filling comments with M-q), especially in group developments.
>
> When 80x24 terminals were common, I guess it was usual to set
> fill-column to 78. Nowadays, with an emacs 21 frame horizontally
> split into two windows, font "fixed", and 40 pixel wide WindowMaker
> application dock icons on a 1024x768 monitor, it seems you have
> to go down to fill-column 74 to avoid horizontal scrolling.
>
> Or do you not bother to stay within the 74 (or so) mark and just
> type to whatever length you please, forcing others to use
> a maximum width emacs window to be able to read your source
> files without having to scroll horizontally?
I personally prefer somewhere around 78th column, since at 1024x768
resolution, a fully maximized emacs window with "fixed" font allows me
to have two vertical windows side by side. I feel I'm doing my part
for readability, since 80 columns is still a standard, despite the
widespread use of graphical environments. Furthermore, I think your
reference to WindowMaker is out of place here. If one based such
decisions on what the potential readers _might_ be using, the width of
a line of code would be somewhere around 10 characters. Just think
about it, what if somebody is using _two_ WindowMaker wharfs? Or maybe
she made her own side-panel that is 90 pixels wide? Even without
considering window managers, what if the person is using 800x600
resolution or size 16 font on 1024x768 resolution?
To sum this all up, I believe that the 80-column standard is the best
rule of thumb to go by until it can be safely assumed that at least
80% of the potential readers are using something wider.
Regards!
--
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War
IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein
··········@yahoo.com (Pratibha) writes:
> Just curious to know what people's policies are on line length
> of source files, and setting of emacs fill-column (for
> filling comments with M-q), especially in group developments.
I tend to use 78 for Lisp and 72 for C. This is because long lines
are harder to read, and more so in C. Also, deeply indented lines are
almost always a sign that the function is growing too large and ought
to be organized more clearly. Comments should probably be even
tighter, as I've heard a rule of thumb that flowing text wider than 65
characters is hard to read. Indeed, I note both of us are using 70
for posting.
> When 80x24 terminals were common, I guess it was usual to set
> fill-column to 78. Nowadays, with an emacs 21 frame horizontally
> split into two windows, font "fixed", and 40 pixel wide WindowMaker
It's not the space anymore: I use small fonts on a 1600x1200 display,
and can confortably fit two windows side by side. But I usually have
about 7 open, stacked in various ways, as the work demands. It's
about being able to read the whole definition.
--
Pekka P. Pirinen
The problem with "What You See Is What You Get" is that what you see
is all you've got. - Brian Kernighan