From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ingmar@exherbo.org (Ingmar Vanhassel)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:35:50 +0200
Subject: [sup-talk] [PATCH] Use terminal width instead of hardcoded 80
	as the wrap length.
In-Reply-To: <1243439667-sup-3947@entry>
References: <1243102667-sup-6007@r50p>
	<4c4248150905231318kab3819dw68e3a3a614241c0d@mail.gmail.com>
	<1243123134-sup-8032@ntdws12.chass.utoronto.ca>
	<1243439667-sup-3947@entry>
Message-ID: <1244248537-sup-5155@cannonball>

Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Wed May 27 17:58:23 +0200 2009:
> Reformatted excerpts from Ben Walton's message of 2009-05-23:
> > But if you leave sup's "we dont' force wrapping" rules alone, this
> > makes reading mail scroll free if your terminal is wide enough and
> > doesn't change the behaviour if the terminal is narrower.  (Not that
> > I'm against making it an option either.)
> 
> Seems like there are three main modes of operation that would be
> desirable:
> 
> 1. wrap at 80 chars;
> 2. wrap at current terminal width;
> 3. don't wrap.
> 
> (In all cases, existing line breaks in the message are left alone.)
> 
> Would a three-way toggle irritate anyone?

Works for me.