|
Aaron, Actually I'm guessing the limitation has more to do with: 1) working within the existing format of a SRC-PF (1->5=seq#, 6=entry type, 7->80?=code, 81+=comments)? (after all, a source member will be a mix of fixed and free code) 2) getting the compile listing to fit on the page? 3) what fits on a 24x80 display? I suppose for code editors you could argue that with 132 character display the record length could be longer, but it would still have a limit. Once a limit is established, whatever that limit, someone is not going to like it. Having lines automatically wrap (and not know where to indent too or where to logically break at) might be a bit confusing. Personally I like the idea of limiting the length so that it forces someone to indent and make columnar alignments of long statements so that they are easier to read. "Bartell, Aaron L. (TC)" wrote: > > <soapybox> > That is like giving somebody their favorite meal and then taking it away > from them when they are only half-way done eating it! > > Having free-format but being limited to 72 characters is VERY frustrating! > Especially when you have already done some scripting languages which don't > limit you. I am trying to guess why they would have limited to that much, > but I can only wonder. <<snip>>
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.