From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Ilya N. Golubev" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs,gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta Subject: customizing inhibit-field-text-motion [Re: comint loses prompt boundary] Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:56:31 +0300 Message-ID: <25r6uxgpu8.fsf@mo.msk.ru> References: <16k64g20tu.fsf@mo.msk.ru> <59ejumjzz2.fsf@mo.msk.ru> <843bazvd1b.fsf@mo.msk.ru> <87lklbu7nb.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <887iwvis8x.fsf@mo.msk.ru> <887iwvis8x.fsf@mo.msk.ru> <37mz5o7mb5.fsf_-_@mo.msk.ru> <13lkpeawcu.fsf@mo.msk.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1166467186 17704 80.91.229.2 (18 Dec 2006 18:39:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:39:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Jerry James , rms@gnu.org, xemacs-beta@xemacs.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 18 19:39:40 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwNOU-0002YA-FU for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:39:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwNOT-00051c-TZ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:39:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GwKrD-0002cG-Ss for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:56:51 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GwKrC-0002c1-K4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:56:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwKrC-0002by-9R for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:56:50 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.213.85.9] (helo=d-fens.mopniei.ru) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1GwKr7-0006gX-G4; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:56:46 -0500 Original-Received: from d-fens.mopniei.ru (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by d-fens.mopniei.ru (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kBIFuVaf003180 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:56:31 +0300 Original-Received: (from gin@localhost) by d-fens.mopniei.ru (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id kBIFuVL7003179; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:56:31 +0300 X-Authentication-Warning: d-fens.mopniei.ru: gin set sender to gin@mo.msk.ru using -f Original-To: Miles Bader X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:39:20 -0500 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:15471 gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta:23878 Archived-At: `inhibit-field-text-motion', however, is marked as user option in xemacs. Was so since field (re-) implementation appeared in its `xemacs-base' package on 2004/09/07 20:09:16 +0. This is perhaps why assumed that is is also user option in emacs. On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:39:52 +0900 Miles Bader wrote in <87lklbu7nb.fsf@catnip.gol.com> about it in comint mode buffers: > If you set it permanently, you are asking for trouble. This should also hold for comint in xemacs, now that it is largely synched with emacs. Maintainer(s) of fields in both in emacs and xemacs, please clarify `inhibit-field-text-motion' status. This does not necessarily mean stripping it of user option mark. Setting it permanently to non-`nil' may certainly be useful as described in other messages on the topic. This is the primary reason why I personally favor making / leaving `inhibit-field-text-motion' user option. This has nothing to do with compatibility with xemacs implementation, which is even inconsistent in other ways as mentioned in <13lkpeawcu.fsf@mo.msk.ru> of Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:15:29 +0400 (). Note that `inhibit-field-text-motion' status issue is largely independent of those described in . Most of them remain even if `inhibit-field-text-motion' becomes officially customizeable. However, setting `inhibit-field-text-motion' is a way around some of these issues.