mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Barber, Christopher" <Christopher.Bar...@analog.com>
Subject Re: Increase indentation limit from 100 to 120 characters
Date Mon, 08 Jan 2018 17:45:17 GMT
For languages like C++ and Java it is hard to stay within 80 columns without resorting to overly
terse naming scheme or awkward indentation. 120 really makes a lot of sense for C++ and it
seems easier to adopt the same standard throughout the codebase since it may be annoying or
difficult to configure editors to enforce different limits on different subdirectories. I
find that even on my laptop, I can work with two side-by-side editor panes with 120-column
code. 80 columns made perfect sense back in 1985 when most people were editing their code
on 80-column VT terminals and frequently printing their code out, but at this point it is
just a legacy standard.



On 1/8/18, 4:53 AM, "kellen sunderland" <kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's probably good to have an example to help with discussion.  Here's one
>that's been bugging us, and highlights why the current line length limit in
>C++ leads to hard-to-read code:
>https://github.com/larroy/mxnet/blob/467a79c8b9f3a75ce993302c6d0c858628cb1cdc/tests/cpp/operator/batchnorm_test.cc#L963
>
>On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 12:00 PM, kellen sunderland <
>kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just a note that I don't think Pedro was suggesting the change for Python
>> or Scala.  How would folks feel about changing the limit for just C++?
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Tianqi Chen <tqchen@cs.washington.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> An argument against such change would be the coding style standard is
>>> people already get used to it, and there is less benefit of making the
>>> change.
>>>
>>> PEP and Google C style suggest 80 chars as limit, I usually write with
>>> that
>>> in mind and try to break multiple arguments into multiple lines when such
>>> violation happens, and rarely sometimes have a 100 line code for code
>>> reason
>>>
>>> One potential benefit of fewer characters per line makes it easier to do
>>> split editing when you split your code into two screens (hey emacs and vim
>>> users)
>>>
>>> I am not in strong favor of either number of line limits but is
>>> comfortable
>>> with the current setting
>>>
>>>
>>> Tianqi
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Thank you for the excellent reply!
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcgill@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > well....max line length as 100 is adopted in many projects (nearly
all
>>> > > projects I have been involved or used or looked at,
>>> > > spark/flink/bahir/atlas, etc. companies which using scala intensively
>>> > also
>>> > > sets it to 100 (e.g. netflix, you can check their atlas project))
>>> > >
>>> > > one of the reasons is that all these projects are all following
>>> > > https://github.com/databricks/scala-style-guide which was published
>>> in
>>> > the
>>> > > early days of when scala is becoming popular
>>> > >
>>> > > and the behind reason might be that considering the language
>>> > > characteristics of scala, a shorter line limit would be make it more
>>> > > readable, (http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/indentation.html#line-
>>> > wrapping
>>> > > ,
>>> > > the official guide even says 80 as the limit)
>>> > >
>>> > > Also note that, scala-packages has a scala-style plugin regulating
>>> coding
>>> > > style which does not apply limits for certain cases, e.g. import, and
>>> the
>>> > > developer can turn off style checking if you are doing something
>>> special
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > BTW, considering monitor-relevant concern,
>>> > http://scalameta.org/scalafmt/
>>> > > tells that 100 is good enough even for a 30'' wide monitor
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Why -1?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Nan Zhu <zhunanmcgill@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > -1 for scala part
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Marco de Abreu <
>>> > > > > marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com
>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > +1
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Am 05.01.2018 5:49 nachm. schrieb "Chris Olivier" <
>>> > > > cjolivier01@gmail.com
>>> > > > > >:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > +1
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Pedro Larroy <
>>> > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Hi
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Can we please increase the indent limit from 100
to 120? I
>>> find
>>> > 100
>>> > > > > > > too low for current standards and today's monitors.
Default
>>> CLion
>>> > > > line
>>> > > > > > > limit is also 120.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > I'm having to split some long templates and I wish
we had a
>>> > longer
>>> > > > line
>>> > > > > > > limit.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Thanks a lot.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Pedro
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
Mime
View raw message