Subj : Re: Is well written code a rare species ?
To   : comp.programming
From : Chris Sonnack
Date : Mon Aug 15 2005 12:49 pm

Joe Butler writes:

> Your book example is a classic non-sequitur.  Books have nothing
> to do with code layout...

Well, the connection--which has already been discussed, I beleive--
is just that overly long lines are harder on the eyes than short ones.
Newspapers are printed in columns, in part, for that very reason.

> type
> function name(
>     type parameter1, // comment
>     type parameter2, // comment
>     type parameter3 // comment
>     type parameter4 // comment
> ){
>     blah blah
> }

I'm assuming "function name" is the function_name (or did you
mean something else?  or does your language allow spaces in
names?).  I'm assuming you meant this:

    return_type
    function_name (
    [...]

Which is a style I also favor.  Buys just a little more room
on the function declaration line itself, PLUS it makes it very
easy to search for the function definition--just search for
where the name is on the left margin.

I notice what I assume is a a typo above--a missing comma.
To make those easier to spot, I often do something like this:

    return_type
    function_name ( type parameter1
                  , type parameter2
                  , type parameter3
                  , type parameter4
                  )
    {
        blah, blah, blah...
    }

I've learned over the years that the more *visual* structure I
can put in code, the easier it is to work with.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

.