On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Jess Austin email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Aaron Rubin
subjective ones. Arguing over how to break lines is actually a pretty strong argument that time is wasted spent on such issues. A longer line width would reduce these arguments, since less would need to be wrapped.
This is an unsupported, and IMHO largely incorrect, assumption. Several correspondents have noted that they most often overrun their intended line length by one or two characters. Just as there's nothing magical about the number "80", there's nothing magical about "81" or "82" either. In a regime of 90-character lines, the limit will most often be exceeded by one or two characters. The same will happen in a regime of 100-character lines, etc. We'll still need to break lines, and wrapping them in parentheses will still be the best way to do that.
How can you argue that it wouldn't create less line wrapping? According to your argument having 10,000 character width lines wouldn't create less line wrapping either. Nobody ever said it would eliminate it, just reduce it.
This sentiment reminds me of those road-construction enthusiasts who are always certain that the _next_ newly-built highway will end traffic jams forever. What happens instead is that the new road fills with cars too, and it still takes forever to get to work.
ps. ride a bike!