Re: [lmi] [lmi-commits] master 084f1b49 5/5: Make a different virtual pure

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:50:28 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
wrote:

GC> On 7/12/22 14:22, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > 
GC> > GC> without exceeding the width of a Hollerith card.
GC> > 
GC> >  I'm much more conservative (in technical matters) than average, but even 
I
GC> > start to think that 80 might be too limiting nowadays. I still believe 
that
GC> > overlong lines should be avoided because of many good reasons, both
GC> > ideological and practical, but I think that 100 or 120 characters might be
GC> > a better default choice than 80 nowadays. So perhaps we could consider
GC> > increasing the limit used in lmi too?
GC> 
GC> My eyesight isn't getting better. Sorry.

 Sorry, I don't understand how is this related? AFAICS allowing wider lines
would result in higher vertical density, which is what you've been always
(and justifiably) worried about, so wouldn't this change be helpful, rather
than harmful, from this point of view? Or do you mean that 100 characters
wouldn't fit on your display horizontally with the current font size?
Considering that modern displays are much wider than tall, I thought there
would be enough space for 100 characters too, but maybe I'm wrong here.

 Anyhow, this was just a suggestion, I don't mind keeping 80 much neither.
But I still think it's better to allow having 81 character in the line than
using unusual spacing patterns to make them fit. I.e. perhaps we could at
least treat 80 as a "soft" limit, with something like 85 as the hard one?

VZ

pgpIHUXFO8kXH.pgp
Description: PGP signature