Style rule change?

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 1/8/2012 12:04 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> on the other side: I've asked me already often if we shouldnt increase the maxchar/line; I
> believe that would in many cases greatly increase readability ...
> and honestly: who the heck does nowadays work on a 80-line terminal??

Frequently on unix and windows.  I haven't yet committed the time to
try working on a headless windows server 2008, however :)  My text
editor windows all default to 81 cols to avoid just this issue.

> isn't that a relic inherited from stone-time? I would be fine with f.e. 110 or 120 chars/line.

Is a limit even appropriate anymore?  On what basis?  132 chars is one
standard that could be applied.  Perhaps a precommit filter to avoid
issues in the future?

Re: Style rule change?

[HyperHacker <hy...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 23:29, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 1/8/2012 12:04 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> on the other side: I've asked me already often if we shouldnt increase the maxchar/line; I
>> believe that would in many cases greatly increase readability ...
>> and honestly: who the heck does nowadays work on a 80-line terminal??
>
> Frequently on unix and windows.  I haven't yet committed the time to
> try working on a headless windows server 2008, however :)  My text
> editor windows all default to 81 cols to avoid just this issue.
>
>> isn't that a relic inherited from stone-time? I would be fine with f.e. 110 or 120 chars/line.
>
> Is a limit even appropriate anymore?  On what basis?  132 chars is one
> standard that could be applied.  Perhaps a precommit filter to avoid
> issues in the future?

I can nicely fit 3 editor windows at 80 columns on my screen. It's very handy.

-- 
Sent from my toaster.

Re: Style rule change?

[Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>]

William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/8/2012 12:04 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> on the other side: I've asked me already often if we shouldnt increase the maxchar/line; I
>> believe that would in many cases greatly increase readability ...
>> and honestly: who the heck does nowadays work on a 80-line terminal??
> 
> Frequently on unix and windows.  I haven't yet committed the time to
> try working on a headless windows server 2008, however :)  My text
> editor windows all default to 81 cols to avoid just this issue.
> 
>> isn't that a relic inherited from stone-time? I would be fine with f.e. 110 or 120 chars/line.
> 
> Is a limit even appropriate anymore?  On what basis?  132 chars is one
> standard that could be applied.  Perhaps a precommit filter to avoid
> issues in the future?
> 

I think we should stick with the 80 chars/line for email and multiple terminals in parallel.

Regards

Rüdiger