> While I agree that a shorter line length is more readable, I frequently
> exit a manpage, maximise the terminal window, then reopen it when my
> goal is to quickly scan the page for a relevant option.
I don't get it: how does a wider text window help you find an option?
> I find argument lists in particular much easier to look through
> when they take up fewer lines.
Ah, you mean
-a Some option that takes up more lines when
the terminal is narrow, but only makes one line
in a wide termminal
-b Another such option occupying less lines
when the manpage formatter follows the
terminal width
becoming
-a Some option that takes up more lines when the terminal is narrow,
but only makes one line in a wide termminal
-b Another such option occupying less lines when the manpage formatter
follows the terminal width
so that you see the -a and -b in front of successive lines
when the lines are stretched to a large widtgh?
Personaly, I hate it when a manpage formatter does that.
(Some formatters make looking for e.g. the -s of ls(1) trivial:
"man -O tag=s ls", see http://mandoc.bsd.lv/man/mandoc.1.html#tag)
> Manpages in particular are less likely to have large paragraphs
> of text, and a long line length commonly reduces an entire topic to a
> single line which I also find more convenient.
This is probably a matter of personal taste.
I find it exhausting to read very long lines.
> You have a point in that scanning for info is not reading, and
> therefore doesn't require the same kind of concentration and
> doesn't result in as much fatigue. I'm arguing about the
> difficulty in trying to read and comprehend all of a text when
> the typography makes the eye work harder. So perhaps the default
> should be related to the most common way of using man pages.
Please.
Jan
