[PATCH] coding-style: Document 80 chars limit for line length

[Michal Privoznik]

On 12/2/20 11:52 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:58:24PM +0100, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> The idea is to have it like a soft limit: if possible then break
>> lines, if not then have a long line instead of some creative
>> approach.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   docs/coding-style.rst | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/docs/coding-style.rst b/docs/coding-style.rst
>> index cfd7b16638..813128bfb6 100644
>> --- a/docs/coding-style.rst
>> +++ b/docs/coding-style.rst
>> @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ around operators and keywords:
>>   
>>     indent-libvirt()
>>     {
>> -    indent -bad -bap -bbb -bli4 -br -ce -brs -cs -i4 -l75 -lc75 \
>> +    indent -bad -bap -bbb -bli4 -br -ce -brs -cs -i4 -l80 -lc80 \
> 
> The indent tool enforces line length no matter what....

Yeah, it's not perfect, but I am no friend with gnu indent so I don't 
know how to specify hard and soft limits and quick skim through manpage 
did not suggest it's possible.

> 
>>              -sbi4 -psl -saf -sai -saw -sbi4 -ss -sc -cdw -cli4 -npcs -nbc \
>>              --no-tabs "$@"
>>     }
>> @@ -141,6 +141,18 @@ further, by piping it through ``expand -i``, since some leading
>>   TABs can get through. Usually they're in macro definitions or
>>   strings, and should be converted anyhow.
>>   
>> +The recommended length for lines is 80 characters, but common sense
>> +should prevail. It may get tricky around some names (because of how
>> +Libvirt constructs names for functions/enums/etc.)
> 
> but this is a mere recommendation.
> 
> IMHO we should say
> 
>   "The maximum permitted line length is 100 characters, but lines
>    should aim to be approximately 80 characters."
> 
> and then use -l100 for indent

Works for me. Thomas, since you suggested we document this, does this 
wording sound reasonable to you? If so, I will post v2.

Michal