Lister: please increase chars per line max 512

The behaviour described in the bug report is either by design, or would be far too complex/time-consuming to be changed

Moderators: white, Hacker, petermad, Stefan2

Post Reply
JFierce7
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 2005-07-17, 10:47 UTC

Lister: please increase chars per line max 512

Post by *JFierce7 »

Chars per line in Lister cannot be configured longer than 512 chars. I think, if a limit is necessary at all, it should be much higher. Lines in XML files can be very looong ;-)
User avatar
Valentino
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 706
Joined: 2003-02-07, 00:21 UTC
Location: Ukraine

Post by *Valentino »

Support++. If Wrap option is off, there should be no limit. Sometimes it annoys. If user tries to view/compare some binary file as text, 0 byte can also be treated as line end but not wrapping in unexpected place :roll:
JFierce7
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 2005-07-17, 10:47 UTC

Post by *JFierce7 »

AFAIK, currently line length are treated as follows:

Wrap off: Lines are broken after 255 chars - that is intentionally and will not be changed (probably).

Wrap on: Line length can be configured in lister. However, the line length cannot be longer than 512 chars. This is too small, IMO.
User avatar
Valentino
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 706
Joined: 2003-02-07, 00:21 UTC
Location: Ukraine

Post by *Valentino »

JFierce7 wrote:Wrap off: Lines are broken after 255 chars - that is intentionally and will not be changed (probably).
This is the same as Wrap On with 256 chars limit, so what is the sense of such Wrap Off?
JFierce7 wrote:Wrap on: Line length can be configured in lister. However, the line length cannot be longer than 512 chars. This is too small, IMO.
Even 10240 can be small, depending on the task. Wrap on NNN means wrap on NNN :)
JFierce7
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 2005-07-17, 10:47 UTC

Post by *JFierce7 »

Valentino wrote:This is the same as Wrap On with 256 chars limit, so what is the sense of such Wrap Off?
Well, I don't agree with this limit :-)

However, as this german thread indicates, Christian chose this limit in order to show large files quickly.
User avatar
SanskritFritz
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2003-07-24, 09:25 UTC
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Post by *SanskritFritz »

Sadly there was no reaction to my proposal to increase the line width limit.
:x
I switched to Linux, bye and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
Valentino
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 706
Joined: 2003-02-07, 00:21 UTC
Location: Ukraine

Post by *Valentino »

JFierce7 wrote:However, as this german thread indicates, Christian chose this limit in order to show large files quickly.
Well, there is some sense in this, but sometimes it spoils the life :) To make everyone happy we need one more INI option: WrapAlwaysAt512chars which is 1 (on) by default, so such "grumblers" as we could set it to 0 :)
User avatar
SanskritFritz
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2003-07-24, 09:25 UTC
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Post by *SanskritFritz »

No, the ini option should be:
MaxCharsInLine=512
I want to set the number!
I switched to Linux, bye and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
Valentino
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 706
Joined: 2003-02-07, 00:21 UTC
Location: Ukraine

Post by *Valentino »

But there is already such option (TextWidth in [Lister]) that can be used to set wrapping width. But if you insist on having MaxCharsInLine then I will ask for MaxCharsInLine=0 support (no max chars limit) :)
User avatar
SanskritFritz
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 3693
Joined: 2003-07-24, 09:25 UTC
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Post by *SanskritFritz »

MaxCharsInLine=0 support
I'm afraid that is impossible with the current representation. There has to be a buffer in memory for every line, there has to be a limit. It is possible to write another representation of the lines but that would be much slower IMHO.
I switched to Linux, bye and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
ghisler(Author)
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 48083
Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Post by *ghisler(Author) »

Currently I cannot increase this number, because the buffer would become too small to hold an entire visible page in memory.
Author of Total Commander
https://www.ghisler.com
JFierce7
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 2005-07-17, 10:47 UTC

Post by *JFierce7 »

But please keep it in mind for future extension!
Thanks
Post Reply