From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,429176cb92b1b825 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!k14g2000pre.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: AWS Coding Styles (and about boring plain-linear text files in the end) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:41:00 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <99b94f5f-9bf7-4f1b-a773-cddfb7932f35@k14g2000pre.googlegroups.com> References: <4d355450$0$6891$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1295365614 7341 127.0.0.1 (18 Jan 2011 15:46:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:46:54 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k14g2000pre.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:17493 Date: 2011-01-18T07:41:00-08:00 List-Id: On Jan 18, 6:20=A0am, sjw wrote: > On Jan 18, 8:50=A0am, Georg Bauhaus > wrote: > > > > > > > On 1/18/11 1:45 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > On Jan 17, 5:47 am, Bill Findlay =A0wrote: > > > >>>> A line should never be longer than 79 characters, > > >>>> not counting the line separator. > > > >>> =A0 =A0 =A0I fully agree with this is some sense (just that I use 7= 8 > > >>> =A0 =A0 =A0characters instead of 79). > > > >> Why 78/79 and not 80, as I have always used? > > > > I tend to make all my windows 80 characters wide. =A0I use EMACS, whi= ch > > > reserves the 80th character for a wrapping indicator, so that if you > > > used it on a source with an 80-character line, EMACS would display > > > only 79 of those on the first line, put a mark in the 80th character > > > indicating that the line is wrapped, and then display the 80th > > > character on the next line. > > > Emacs seems =A0to be off by =A01, then ;-) =A0To edit a card =A0image (= an > > instructive =A0 =A0idea!) =A0 I'd =A0 toggle-truncate-lines =A0 =A0and = =A0 then > > set-variable =A0hscroll-margin to =A01 (or =A00). =A0 Unfortunately, th= is > > hides the =A080th character behind =A0the truncation indicator =A0$. = =A0I > > cannot believe =A0that an editor =A0capable of patching =A0binary files > > and viper-mode forces display =A0of a useless EOL character? =A0OTOH, > > it is written in C... > > Might make sense, alternatively, to make the window 81 columns wide .. I know, I know. I don't really have a good reason for how I do things, just tradition, I guess (although I tend to go along with Pascal's reasons for not having windows *too* wide). But I'm guessing I'm not the only one who adheres to this tradition. I'm just offering this as a possible reason why a style guide author might have suggested a 79-character width instead of 80. -- Adam