On 5/19/09, Aaron Rubin firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
During the PEP for with, this was considered (as a competing meaning for "with"). There was some concern that it might be needed for integration with other frameworks, such as .net, java GUI code, etc.
In the end, Guido rejected it because you can just do it with a temporary variable.
6) Tools are cheap. Time isn't. Get a second monitor, get a more powerful editor, do whatever it takes to save time. If viewing more information at one time is important, then we should try to make that possible with technology, not time.
I just looked at a sampling of books from my shelf. The longest line length I found was 71 characters.
I have seen (but can't find at the moment) studies showing that lines wider than a certain percentage of the visual field are problematic. The exact portion (and how many characters fit in it at a readable font) will vary from person to person; what is comfortable for you may already be very disruptive for a teammate -- and your savings from a longer line are small enough that this is one case where lowest common denominator should be given great weight. (Leading whitespace is much "cheaper" than actual text, but there is still some effort in sliding that focal window back and forth with the indent/dedent dance.)
And of course, this concern with visual focal area already assumes that everyone will have windows as wide as yours and fonts as small; I can assure you that neither is true. The first person to need horizontal scrolling will lose more time than you saved. The first person using a window/terminal where the line wrapped on its own because it was too long will squander far more.