Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-19 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
Alvaro Herrera a écrit : Peter Eisentraut wrote: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple of violations either way, which I'd like to fix, but what to? 79

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-19 Thread Sam Mason
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:56:06PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple of violations either

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:04:46 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-16 Thread Jonah H. Harris
On Nov 15, 2007 4:56 PM, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple of violations either way,

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-15 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:58:28 +0100 Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple of violations either way, which I'd like to fix, but what to? Yea, I went over with the pg_ctl

[HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple of violations either way, which I'd like to fix, but what to? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-15 Thread Joshua D. Drake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:04:46 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-15 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also it would rock if translation kept the alignment in various output. Theoretically the translators are supposed to do that already ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-15 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Bruce Momjian wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple of violations either way, which I'd like to fix, but what to? Yea,

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-15 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple of violations either way, which I'd like to fix, but what to? I think 79 is

Re: [HACKERS] Terminal width for help output

2007-11-15 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Do we care to maintain a maximum width for programs' --help output (and psql's \?)? I think 79 characters was once a recommendation (or perhaps 72), but we have a couple of violations either way, which I'd like to fix, but what to? 79 is perfect IMHO. It would be