Re: Display-based word wrapping

[Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> For truncate-partial-window-width OTOH, I think it would make sense to
>>> allow it to be an integer to mean "truncate if the window is less than
>>> this number".  But that's unrelated to word-wrapping,
>
>> It's a good idea, and it's actually fairly closely related to
>> word-wrapping.  If truncate-partial-window-width is a sufficiently small
>> number, it wouldn't interfere with word wrap for fairly large-sized
>> windows.  For small windows, it would make sense to truncate instead of
>> word wrapping.
>
>> So maybe this is a good solution.
>
> Solution to what?

To the problem of how to treat truncate-partial-window-width once
word-wrapping is available as a third option for long lines (the first
two options being line truncation and simple line continuation).

Instead of adding `word-wrap' as a new value for truncate-lines, let's
say we add a new per-buffer variable, `word-wrap', which if non-nil says
to wrap lines at word boundaries rather than the middle of words.  This
variable has no effect if lines are truncated instead of continued.
Then truncate-partial-window-width need not "care" about whether
non-truncation means simple line continuation or word wrapping.

Finally, by allowing truncate-partial-window-width to take integer
values as you suggested, and then setting the default to a number such
as 30, we can ensure that word wrapping can still take place for
reasonably-sized partial-width windows.