Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Which code style do you prefer the most?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 21:55:05 +0600
Organization: OSN Developers
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <vpsm8p$3ns2l$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vpkmq0$21php$1@dont-email.me> <vpl62m$250af$1@dont-email.me>
 <87frk10w51.fsf@onesoftnet.eu.org> <vpn8vs$2jmv1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpn92i$86q$1@reader1.panix.com> <vpodnf$2q6ak$4@dont-email.me>
 <vpovd0$30d00$1@dont-email.me> <vpp011$30evb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpp8ag$31ooi$1@dont-email.me> <vppaeq$323aa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vprpss$3ipmu$1@dont-email.me> <vprtlj$3jdn5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vprv75$3jmqu$1@dont-email.me> <vps2k5$3k722$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpsgqc$3mr9v$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 16:55:06 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fe5f78b35297dc67a24ae7e577d95659";
	logging-data="3928149"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JJLcByAL4ajfoBPQe9OgSqw5F1zq4mMo="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rk2I1XkY0lFsuo1uM0WBrrsXENw=
In-Reply-To: <vpsgqc$3mr9v$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3237

On 2/28/25 8:22 PM, bart wrote:
> On 28/02/2025 10:19, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 28/02/2025 09:21, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 28.02.2025 09:55, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, I maxed out at 24.
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to get to know what sort of code-lines
>>> or what sort of code-structure these extreme values stem from.
>>
>> I thought so too, so I looked, and of course it's not as interesting 
>> as we might have hoped.
>>
>> I'm not allowed to post the code here, but I can paraphrase:
>>
>>    value = really_quite_extremely_long_function_name(arg1,
>>                                                      arg2,
>>                                                      arg3,
>>                                                      arg4);
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
> 
> I think I'd go with this:
> 
>      value = really_quite_extremely_long_function_name(
>          arg1,
>          arg2,
>          arg3,
>          arg4);
> 
> Since the args would then also line up with a similar call but where the 
> function name is a different length:
> 
>      value2 = a_somewhat_shorter_function_name(
>          arg1,
>          arg2,
>          arg3,
>          arg4);
> 
> That's assuming it is still not viable to have them all on the same line.

I'd probably choose to put the closing ')' on a new line:

value = really_quite_extremely_long_function_name(
   arg1,
   arg2,
   arg3,
   arg4
);

-- 
Rakin