Is 78 characters still a good option? Was: [Haskell-cafe]
breaking too long lines
daniel.is.fischer at web.de
Sat Apr 25 11:02:07 EDT 2009
Am Samstag 25 April 2009 16:44:45 schrieb Miguel Mitrofanov:
> On 25 Apr 2009, at 18:34, Xiao-Yong Jin wrote:
> > Miguel Mitrofanov <miguelimo38 at yandex.ru> writes:
> >> On 24 Apr 2009, at 16:37, Loup Vaillant wrote:
> >>> 2009/4/23 Miguel Mitrofanov <miguelimo38 at yandex.ru>:
> >>>> On 23 Apr 2009, at 12:17, Thomas Davie wrote:
> >>>>> Haskell is a very horizontal language, and to limit our horizontal
> >>>>> space
> >>>>> seems pretty weird.
> >>>> +1. I sometimes use lines up to 200 characters long, when I feel
> >>>> they would
> >>>> be more readable.
> >>> 200 sounds awfully long. Do you have any example?
> >> Something like
> >> newtype MyCoolMonad = MyCoolMonad (FirstTransformer
> >> (SecondTransformer
> >> (ThirdTransformer Whatever))) deriving (Functor, Monad, FirstClass,
> >> SecondClass, ThirdClass, SomeOtherClass)
> >> Nobody would be really interested in "deriving" clause, because it
> >> basically says "derive everything possible". Therefore, it seems
> >> pointless to move it to another line.
> > You don't write lisp, do you? Or probably it is just me.
> > But I would prefer to write the line as
> > newtype MyCoolMonad = MyCoolMonad (FirstTransformer
> > (SecondTransformer
> > (ThirdTransformer Whatever)))
> Well, first impression I've got from this was that FirstTransformer,
> SecondTransformer and the rest are on the same level:
> newtype MyCool Monad = MyCoolMonad (FirstTransformer)
> (SecondTransformer) (ThirdTransformer Whatever)
> which is very confusing.
You have a point there. If split over several lines, I'd recommend each line indented
further than the previous to indicate nesting:
But I wouldn't really prefer that over having it on one line.
> > deriving (Functor, Monad,
> > FirstClass, SecondClass, ThirdClass, SomeOtherClass)
> A lot of unnecessary information distracting the reader. It's better
> kept somewhere else, where it doesn't attract too much attention -
> like in the end of the line.
There I have to disagree. IMO, having the deriving clause on the same line (unless it's a
very short one) obscures the code and makes it *much* harder to read.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe