From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tzakmagiel via "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#60936: 30.0.50; ERC >5.5: Add erc-fill style based on visual-line-mode Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87tu0nao77.fsf@neverwas.me> Reply-To: tzakmagiel Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3846"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: "60936@debbugs.gnu.org" <60936@debbugs.gnu.org> Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 15 13:02:18 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1raaRV-0000oh-Gh for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 13:02:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1raaR1-0002kL-EA; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:01:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1raaQy-0002jm-0n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:01:45 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1raaQx-0000dW-EZ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:01:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1raaRF-0000vi-TP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:02:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <87tu0nao77.fsf@neverwas.me> Resent-From: tzakmagiel Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:02:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 60936 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 60936-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B60936.17079985073553 (code B ref 60936); Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:02:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 60936) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2024 12:01:47 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54334 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1raaR1-0000vE-Ic for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:01:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch ([185.70.43.25]:21541) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1raaR0-0000v1-0k for 60936@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:01:46 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=proton.me; s=protonmail; t=1707998481; x=1708257681; bh=TjBLKgSxKMupZ7bt38kEcnXwoFo37oHvAJoXUKhINsE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date: Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=B0nSrogIS3dc4k0b3s5YsCRVUKoXRrTkbw09SE5zZC0XwuxFks1dDz73uwjTahn0k K5IJfIhKTUvALjTM9MkZotvbZE38Fdje+mQE5hvYNfNRg4z5i3V3Hka6Yb9bzKw+9u mSl1+bB8Ciw4JuSgIJELfS/r1f09UGB+a97Q5PAPQ752X6IMUnfJBJ/IXuO3L5uJ1H kOxMGr51bsQWM9UvGkgLirZsKPBIkdRtThbrjR0tybx1iVjFIDN5sE0HMjdYcUAnii obhIyWJSl6647uLX8ewQG67z+HCgFIHHGbZL1vSwMgr/7i4RpKvs7KqLtE7MW8Wmju pg60ODhDKdA3w== Feedback-ID: 101103031:user:proton X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:280056 Archived-At: +1'ing this the issue in Message #166 for visibility. I raised this questio= n under the nick "alcor" on #erc yesterday, and I agree that the default be= havior of `fill-wrap' (i.e. without `scrolltobottom') might be confusing/un= expected for new `fill-wrap' users (such as myself, in this case). For the record, the behavior without the scrolltobottom module could be des= cribed as "messages tend to drift upward on screen, gradually increasing th= e whitespace between prompt and bottom of window" (This description courtes= y of corwin on #erc). >I'm thinking it might make sense to have `fill-wrap' formally depend on `s= crolltobottom', even though there's no technical reason to do so. +1 on that too. The behavior with `scrolltobottom' makes more sense (as a d= efault) and is more in line with other IRC clients, where the message promp= t is kept at the bottom of the window.