Re: Why do all the XEmacs defaults suck? (was Re: Why using (push-mark) ?)
John A. Martin writes:
>>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic
>>>>> "Re: Why do all the XEmacs defaults suck? (was Re: Why using
(push-mark) ?)"
>>>>> 21 Oct 1998 17:49:42 +0200
Hrvoje> "John A. Martin" <jam(a)jamux.com> writes:
>> How about making the default contain 80 characters without
>> wrapping (geometry 81x40)?
Hrvoje> That wouldn't work on TTY's.
There is a lot of stuff defaulted for X that will not work on tty's.
Is there a reason why the default width for X cannot or should not be
different than for a tty?
Should not, to avoid creating documents that edit OK under X but
are hard to read in Emacs on a tty. The same reasoning applied
to terminals that had 132-column modes in the Bad Old Days. If
you edited documents in that mode the rest of the world hated
you becusae of the wrapped lines they saw on their 80-column
terminals.
If we don't care about compatibility with editing under ttys,
then this reasoning doesn't apply. But from what I can see, dumb
terminals and xterms are still in heavy use.