Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 25, 2018. It is now read-only.

proposal: use hard wrapping for code and soft wrapping for prose #53

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ryansobol
Copy link

As a newcomer, I find hard wrapping prose to be extremely annoying and time consuming. I'm eager to hear counter arguments, but IMHO, it seems like a rule that just creates extra work for writers and reviewers.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

Consistency > convenience. The rule in core is 80 columns, the documentation should not be an exception.

@jasonrhodes
Copy link

When you say "core", you're talking about a rule for code files, right? I've never heard of hard-wrapping paragraphs in markdown—is this already being done like this?

On Jan 9, 2016, at 8:12 AM, Ben Noordhuis [email protected] wrote:

Consistency > convenience. The rule in core is 80 columns, the documentation should not be an exception.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

I mean the markdown files here - https://github.com/nodejs/node/tree/v5.4.0/doc/api - and those are hard-wrapped at 80 columns. You may find a few lines that are longer if you go looking but those are the exception, not the norm.

@benjamingr
Copy link
Member

I'm +1 on this, it feels like a very arbitrary limit for doc text.

@ryansobol ryansobol changed the title proposal: use soft wrapping for prose and hard wrapping for code proposal: use hard wrapping for code and soft wrapping for prose Jan 9, 2016
@ryansobol
Copy link
Author

You may find a few lines that are longer if you go looking but those are the exception, not the norm.

While this is true, it demonstrates how inconsistent doc contributions are. Simply put, it's easy to forget to to apply the rule as a writer and check for it as a reviewer. Don't get me wrong, I'm in complete agreement about maintaining consistency of code contributions, no matter if they're in the core or the docs. But I argue that those same rules might not make sense with prose contributions.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

I think most of the existing style violations date back from years ago, when reviews were much sloppier than they are today.

@chrisdickinson
Copy link
Contributor

I much prefer hard wrapping at 80 since many will be editing the docs in monospace; this should be automatically checked though.

@Qard
Copy link
Member

Qard commented Jan 13, 2016

-1 In some cases, the place in which the content is being viewed may not provide soft-wrapping and will instead require horizontal scrolling, which is even more annoying, in my opinion.

@benjamingr
Copy link
Member

In some cases, the place in which the content is being viewed may not provide soft-wrapping and will instead require horizontal scrolling, which is even more annoying, in my opinion.

Any example for such a place @Qard ?

@Qard
Copy link
Member

Qard commented Jan 14, 2016

Many command line text editors, github raw view, probably lots of other places.

@sam-github
Copy link

@Qard command line text editors don't have to wrap if its kept at 80 chars, and github raw view doesn't, either. A number of github tools in fact work quite poorly for text over 90 or a 100 chars, often you can't even see the horizontal scrollbar at the bottom as you stare at the beginning of an unwrapped line.

That's the point of hard wrapping in-source: the author does it, so that all the wide variety of tools that come after do not.

@ryansobol What editor do you use? I'm surprised it won't wrap for you.

@sam-github
Copy link

And as far as node's source goes: having one rule for markdown and one for all the others is not so handy.

@evanlucas
Copy link

Yea, I think it should be a hard limit for both code and docs for consistency. -1 from me.

@RichardLitt
Copy link

Yea, I think it should be a hard limit for both code and docs for consistency.

I agree with this. -1.

What is the procedure in place for coming to consensus on closing (or merging) this PR?

@eljefedelrodeodeljefe
Copy link
Contributor

There rather is no process. This can be closed as the majority of contributors is against it.

@eljefedelrodeodeljefe
Copy link
Contributor

thanks for the proposal though, Ryan.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants