On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:
Goal: prevent wraparound of lines on 1024x768 resolution using standard fonts
Hmm, if wrapping lines you must, then wrap them at the standard 80 characters, rather than some ill defined length (whose 'standard fonts'? xemacs'? gedit's? eterm's (vi)? using which display dpi?).
Goal: prevent wraparound of lines on 1024x768 resolution using standard fonts
Hmm, if wrapping lines you must, then wrap them at the standard 80 characters, rather than some ill defined length (whose 'standard fonts'? xemacs'? gedit's? eterm's (vi)? using which display dpi?).
80-characters is a more difficult goal - this is pretty much exceeded by every second line in that file. The wrap-around point on my screen was at 125 chars with vi, which I think is awfully long. [ and that's ugly, so I've tried to cut lines much earlier than that ].
Seemed like a good compromise, since the majority of computer users use 1024x768 resolution.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Ivan Gyurdiev wrote: [...]
80-characters is a more difficult goal - this is pretty much exceeded by every second line in that file.
Maybe that means it's badly structured (too much nested ifs or some such).
The wrap-around point on my screen was at 125 chars with vi, which I think is awfully long.
[ and that's ugly, so I've tried to cut lines much earlier than that ].
Seemed like a good compromise, since the majority of computer users use 1024x768 resolution.
Screen resolution means strictly nothing if you don't also specify the font size. For some users lines will wrap at 100 characters, for others 132, yet others 110, etc.
On 24/04/06, Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Ivan Gyurdiev wrote: [...]
80-characters is a more difficult goal - this is pretty much exceeded by every second line in that file.
Maybe that means it's badly structured (too much nested ifs or some such).
It is :-)
-
Francois Gouget -
H. Verbeet -
Ivan Gyurdiev