80 cols does work well with the side by side diff in Phabricator. Alan
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Tuncer Ayaz <tuncer.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Richard Eisenberg <e...@cis.upenn.edu> > wrote: > > At both school and at home I can fit 3 80-character buffers side by > > side, at a comfortable font size. Going up (even to 85 cols) would > > mean losing a buffer. (Or straining my eyes.) Of course I can deal > > with wrapped lines. But I still vote for 80 characters as a target, > > while allowing people wiggle room to miss this target. > > > > The number 80 is with us for historical reasons, but I know I'm not > > the only one who still routinely uses 80-column buffers. > > It's not just for historical reasons, it's one of those things that > turned out to be a reasonable convention: > > Regardless of the width of windows, it's easier to read limited-width > columns. I may be part of a sub-group, but just like a newspaper, I > find it easier to "eye-scroll" up and down than left and right. This > is the major reason why limiting column width still makes sense. > Unless, of course, it's just a few lines, or things that cannot be > limited due to technical reasons. I don't know if 120 is too wide, but > 100 might be okay. > > Also, changing the length while touching a line is the most natural > way to do it, as white-space reformatting patches, unless done > once-only-for-everything-and-never-again, will be noise and make > things like git-bisect harder to use. > > A width limit also is a nice way to alarm you if you start nesting too > much :). > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > ghc-devs@haskell.org > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs