Re[2]: Bird #5

Due to the amount of e-mail traffic that everyone engages in, along with
printer defaults that truncate longer lines, I think the 80 column
limitiation is very much alive. I vote for human-readability and a
continuation of 80 column restriction.

Will

Should we be so quick to dismiss 80 column limitations or encouraged
styles. Most "default" window sizes still come up as 80 characters; most
screen fonts are still mono-spaced and support this paradigm. Printing of
unformatted text files always still defaults to 10 pt mono-spaced fonts
(even on many postscript systems) and only allow 72-80 characters across per
page. Although the source of the size (80 characters) actually pre-dates
even punched cards, it is still prevalent IF you desire human-readable and
easily processable "documentation".

The real question seems to be whether we desire human readable files. We can
change it to a style issue only if we remove the "newline" (carriage return
or whatever; depending on the file system) as an active part of the syntax.

randy

> From Cadence.COM!cer@lmc.com Thu Dec 9 13:14:27 1993
> To: ibis@vhdl.org
> Subject: Re: Bird #5
>
> Howdy,
>
> As far as I'm concerned there is no reason to confine a line
> to 80 characters. That's an ancient restriction born of
> punched-cards that I think we can safely ignore.
>
> Chris
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 9 16:38:01 1993