On 2007-08-14, Andrew Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Georg Dahn wrote:
> 
> >
> > Andrew Myers wrote:
> >> Yes, but it would be nice to have it work cross-platform. As long as
> >> there's an internal text formatting feature, why not make it do a
> >> good job?
> >
> > It does already a good job. It depends on what you want it to do: if
> > you'd like it to behave like par, then you prefer just a different
> > behavior than the current. But don't call it better as long it is  
> > better
> > for your purpose only. The behavior of par makes sense in many
> > situations, but the current makes sense, too. I would not like to
> > exchange the behavior of gq formatting, for example, but I would  
> > like to
> > have the same behavior of par additionarily to the current.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Georg Dahn
> 
> Actually, I think I would make the strong claim that what I am  
> talking about is not just some personal preference, but a fairly  
> universal one. All serious text formatting systems try to make line  
> lengths equal (without introducing additional line breaks), because  
> this is known to aid readability. The TeX formatting algorithm is one  
> widely used approach. I can't see what generally held notion of  
> goodness the current formatting optimizes for except algorithmic  
> simplicity. But perhaps someone can explain why they prefer  
> linebreaks to be inserted greedily?

I believe the studies that have shown fully-justified text to be 
easier to read than left-justified (ragged-right) text used 
proportional fonts properly typeset on a printed page.

Vim uses a mono-spaced font.  Attempts to fully justify mono-spaced 
type generally look pretty bad--you can't adjust the spacing within 
words and the spacing between words is adjustable only increments of 
m spaces.

Regards,
Gary

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to