From owner-freebsd-chat  Mon Jun  3 01:44:45 1996
Return-Path: owner-chat
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id BAA20558
          for chat-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 01:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from diablo.ppp.de (diablo.ppp.de [193.141.101.34])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA20552
          for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 01:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from allegro.lemis.de by diablo.ppp.de with smtp
	(Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0uQVFX-000QZOC; Mon, 3 Jun 96 10:44 MET DST
From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey)
Organisation: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, 36325 Feldatal, Germany
Phone: +49-6637-919123
Fax:   +49-6637-919122
Received: (grog@localhost) by allegro.lemis.de (8.6.9/8.6.9) 
	id KAA10660; Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:39:38 +0200
Message-Id: <199606030839.KAA10660@allegro.lemis.de>
Subject: Re: Indentation styles
To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 10:39:38 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD Chat)
In-Reply-To: <199606021410.QAA01867@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jun 2, 96 04:10:53 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

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