From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: August Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Carbon emacs - frame too big for minibuffer can't resize window Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:22:31 +0100 Message-ID: <1109776951.5325.31.camel@c83-250-204-178.bredband.comhem.se> References: <87sm3e6wfa.fsf-monnier+gnu.emacs.help@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1109777280 25427 80.91.229.2 (2 Mar 2005 15:28:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 15:28:00 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 02 16:28:00 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D6VhW-0002NE-E0 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:23:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D6W0I-0003WR-M4 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:43:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1D6Vy5-0002LD-0C for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:40:57 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1D6Vxw-0002Ho-W4 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:40:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D6Vxw-0002Eh-NA for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:40:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [81.228.10.114] (helo=av3-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D6VfW-0003HE-JI for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:21:46 -0500 Original-Received: by av3-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4456B37E66; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:21:44 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.181]) by av3-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377A537E58 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:21:44 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from c83-250-204-178.bredband.comhem.se (c83-250-204-178.bredband.comhem.se [83.250.204.178]) by smtp4-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2263C37E43 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:21:44 +0100 (CET) Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87sm3e6wfa.fsf-monnier+gnu.emacs.help@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-MailScanner-To: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:24470 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.help:24470 On ons, 2005-03-02 at 08:02 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Note that lines longer than 80 characters are not recommended as they > > will not fit on standard terminals. That's why the default width is 80. > > The problem is not "standard terminals" but legibility. I'm sure that legibility was one of the motivations for the decision to use 80 character columns for terminals. The standard width sure is an issue here as wrongly formatted paragraphs affect legibility even more than overly long lines. The default width for editors and terminal windows is usually 80 characters. > The rule of thumb is usually that up to 60 columns is perfectly fine, but as > you go further away from that (soft) limit, the eyes have a harder and harder > time to find the beginning of a line from the end of the previous one. (I notice that your message contains lines of length up to 77 characters.) > Given that code (as opposed to plain text) often has some indentation on the > left side, 80 columns is still OK (assuming 20 of them are indentation > whitespace). > > For this reason I'd indeed recommend to stick to 80 columns for typical > situations (even though barely anybody still knows what's a "standard > terminal"). I guess most people have heard about the DOS prompt, terminal windows, console mode or run-level three etc. -- August