5 ms·

setup_spi( &adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01 ); setup_spi( &eeprom, mode=SPI_10, rate=13, cs_cont

setup_spi( &adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01 ); setup_spi( &eeprom, mode=SPI_10, rate=13, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x02 ); setup_spi( &mram, mode=SPI_10, rate=50, cs_control=CS_DIRECT, cs=0x08 ); ftfy

Marazan 1y ago
That is harder to read than the long line version. However, it is the formatting I adopt when forced to bow down to line length formatters.
- someothherguyy 1y ago
  to you, to me, it reads nicely, and thus the issue -- editors should have built in formatters that don't actually edit source code, but offer a view
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    To me, that reads fine, but it has lost the property elevation wanted, which was that it's easy to compare the values assigned to any particular parameter across multiple calls. In your version you can only read one call at a time.
- lenkite 1y ago
  Err..I find the short-line version easier to read. Esp if you need to horizontally scroll. This is why a Big Dictator should just make a standard. Everyone who doesn't like the standard approach just gets used to it.
DonHopkins 1y ago
This is good, and objectively better than letting the random unbounded length of the function name define and inflate and randomize the indentation. It also makes it easier to use long descriptive function names without fucking up the indentation. setup_spi(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01 ); setup_spoo(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01 ); setup_s(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01 ); validate_and_register_spi_spoo_s(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01 );
- DemocracyFTW2 1y ago
  Here, fixed it for you: setup_spi( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 ); setup_spoo( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 ); setup_s( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 ); validate_and_register_spi_spoo_s( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 );

Marazan 1y ago

That is harder to read than the long line version. However, it is the formatting I adopt when forced to bow down to line length formatters.

someothherguyy 1y ago
to you, to me, it reads nicely, and thus the issue -- editors should have built in formatters that don't actually edit source code, but offer a view
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  To me, that reads fine, but it has lost the property elevation wanted, which was that it's easy to compare the values assigned to any particular parameter across multiple calls. In your version you can only read one call at a time.
lenkite 1y ago
Err..I find the short-line version easier to read. Esp if you need to horizontally scroll. This is why a Big Dictator should just make a standard. Everyone who doesn't like the standard approach just gets used to it.

DonHopkins 1y ago

This is good, and objectively better than letting the random unbounded length of the function name define and inflate and randomize the indentation. It also makes it easier to use long descriptive function names without fucking up the indentation. setup_spi(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01 ); setup_spoo(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01 ); setup_s(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01 ); validate_and_register_spi_spoo_s(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01 );

DemocracyFTW2 1y ago
Here, fixed it for you: setup_spi( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 ); setup_spoo( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 ); setup_s( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 ); validate_and_register_spi_spoo_s( &adc, mode = SPI_01, rate = 15, cs_control = CS_MUXED, cs = 0x01 );