Re: Display-based word wrapping

[Miles Bader]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>> Yes -- window width is very often the wrong thing to use.  I want to be
>> able to wrap at say 72 columns and not have to resize my window to
>> achieve that effect.
>
> That's a separate feature.  The same can be requested for char-wrapping
> (and for line-truncation even).  So let's drop this from this thread,
> which is about word-wrapping.

Well as long as it's available, I don't care how it's categorized. :-)

But it is more important for word-wrapping, because AFAIUT, when
word-wrapping is used, wrapping is "the norm" -- you expect there to be
lots and lots of "wrapped" lines in normal text -- whereas the other
wrapping modes emacs traditionally supports are "exceptional" -- normal
text usually isn't expected to wrap, and if some does, it is a potential
problem indicator.

A similar argument applies to wrapping indicators:  For traditional
wrapping modes, it's Ok, and even useful, when wrapping indicators are
quite noticeable, because they usually indicate an exceptional
condition.  But for word wrapping, wrapping is the normal case, so more
care should be taken to make sure wrapping indicators [if any] are not
annoying.

-Miles

-- 
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten.  [George Carlin]