On 2009-12-03 at 17:55:57 [+0100], Alexandre Deckner <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ingo Weinhold wrote: > > On 2009-12-03 at 14:13:24 [+0100], Alexandre Deckner <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > >> ie: no mandatory tab count, but emphasize on _aligned_. > > > > I'm even in favor for a mandatory tab count, since it makes copying > > between > > headers less annoying. The modifier and type columns are already used > > pretty consistently, I believe (position 5 and 13). For the > > method/variable > > name column things vary a bit more, but I think the major styles use > > position 29 and 33 respectively. I'm follower of the latter as I've often > > found the type column to be too small with the former (particularly when > > the type is const). > Why not, but i've encountered some issues sometimes when having > long return type names, long typedefs and/or long method names. Yeah, most return/attribute types fit, but sometimes one is too long (usually template types). Typedefs I start at the type column, so there's room for 68 characters, which might not be enough for longer/complex template types, but then the usual wrapping convention can be applied, and it looks OK IMHO. IIRC, I've never had a too long method name though (that would mean >= 47 characters), and I'm certainly not known for short identifier names. :-) Method parameters are a different story. They often don't fit all on the same line, but applying the usual wrapping rules results in good readability I'd say. > In some cases, even trying to be aligned is not really possible with > the 80 char limit, you'd have cut in the middle of the method name :-) Sure, one cannot guarantee perfect alignment with any limit. Even if you'd only want to catch 99% of the cases, you'd probably have to use a very long line limit, which doesn't really add to readability. I think the suggested style is a pretty good compromise. CU, Ingo