> This I've been thinking of mentioning - how many people are stuck
> with 80 columns these days?

As a datapoint, at home, I have four displays, two of which are "stuck
with" 80 columns.  (One is a 1600x1280 NetBSD/sparc bwtwo; one is an
1152x900 NetBSD/sparc cgsix; one is an *old* vga board with an *old*
monochrome monitor and I don't even know whether it *can* do anything
but text mode - I certainly haven't tried; one is an IBM 3151, an ascii
terminal - hmm, I wonder if it does 132 columns....)

But even when I'm on the X displays, I normally use 80-column windows,
and would resent being told I were broken to do so.

> [...] KNF but with 132 columns.  A fairly arbitary number, but it
> fits comfortably on screen when I have to use a 1024x864 display

Ouch.  In 1024 pixels I can't see fitting more than about 170 columns,
which means at most one 132-column window.  That's just not enough, in
my experience.

There's also the problem that unless you mutate the coding style
significantly, many/most of those lines can't use anywhere near 80
columns, never mind 132, so you end up wasting a lot of that space
(both on screen and on paper).

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B