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

[Greg Chicares]

On 7/12/22 21:16, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> 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.
> 
> [...] do you mean that 100 characters
> wouldn't fit on your display horizontally with the current font size?

Yes, sorry for not being more explicit.

> 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.

With Deja Vu Sans Mono 12pt, I get 93 characters per line.

>  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?

Limit, or limit not: there is no "soft".