Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262846AbUCJVfF (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:35:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262851AbUCJVfF (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:35:05 -0500 Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk ([193.201.200.170]:6306 "EHLO chiark.greenend.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262846AbUCJVfA (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:35:00 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OT] Re: (0 == foo), rather than (foo == 0) In-Reply-To: <404F6375.3080500@blue-labs.org> References: <905989466451C34E87066C5C13DDF034593392@HYDMLVEM01.e2k.ad.ge.com> <20040310100215.1b707504.rddunlap@osdl.org> <404F6375.3080500@blue-labs.org> Message-Id: From: Matthew Garrett Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:34:59 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1031 Lines: 21 David Ford wrote: >Really, your mail reading software should be capable of wrapping things >by itself, we really have progressed from yesteryear. The issue is that there are two types of text. The message itself should be wrapped, whereas inline code may be semantically changed by being wrapped. If both are streams of text with no embedded newlines then there's no way of telling the difference between them, whereas if one has embedded newlines then the choice of wrapping the other can be made by the recipient. The alternative would result in both being wrapped, which isn't the behaviour I want. Having lines that are slightly shorter than ideal on some people's screens seems the lesser of two evils. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.linux-rutgers.kernel@srcf.ucam.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/