Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:39:38 +0200 (MET DST) From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD Chat) Subject: Re: Indentation styles Message-ID: <199606030839.KAA10660@allegro.lemis.de> In-Reply-To: <199606021410.QAA01867@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jun 2, 96 04:10:53 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J Wunsch writes:
>
> As Greg Lehey wrote:
>
>>> The typografical rules say ~ 60 chars per line, everything else has to
>>> be made two-column (a bit impractical for programs :).
>>
>> I've been thinking about this for a while, and I both agree and
>> disagree. Yes, more than 60 chars per line become difficult to read,
>> but I *do* use dual columns in my programs. There are these things
>> called comments which I align in a column at the right (starting at
>> column 50 by default). I don't like it when too many code lines run
>> into the comment columns.
>
> ``comment columns'' are not really sanctioned by KNF. Look at
> style(9) and into all the 4.4BSD-derived stuff, comments are usually
> aligned at the indent level of the code. You should not comment each
> and any line, it doesn't make the code better readable nor better
> understandable.
This is very much a matter of opinion. Obviously not *every* line
requires a comment (lines containing a single { or } are pretty
self-evident :-), but in general kernel code contains far too few
comments. Where you put the comments is a matter of style, of course.
> Instead, usually a larger block should be commented explaining its
> purpose. This way, you won't have a need for two-column styled C
> programs.
Of course, if you put the comments where they belong, you wouldn't
have a need for large comment blocks separated from their code. You
can see this both ways. In fact, I see a need both for block comments
and line comments.
Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606030839.KAA10660>