Should width be the minimum of -w parameter and terminal width?

[J-Kappes]

Personally, I have ls aliased to echo;eza --icons --no-quotes -w 110. I use the -w for readability by limiting the width on wide terminals.
However, using that alias in a small terminal can result in wrapping. I would prefer it if the -w parameter only presented an upper bound to the width instead of overriding the terminal width. What about you?

[daviessm]

I'd be happy with a --max-width parameter.

[cafkafk]

I also prefer this tbh, that way we don't break backwards compatibility (although you could argue the previous -w behavior isn't super useful)