From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Uday S Reddy Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Lines again Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 16:44:01 +0100 Message-ID: <19465.8001.703000.121823@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275666267 17811 80.91.229.12 (4 Jun 2010 15:44:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Uday S Reddy To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 04 17:44:26 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OKZ4G-0001QD-97 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:44:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57957 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OKZ4E-0001oX-Ly for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:44:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59383 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OKZ46-0001n7-CE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:44:11 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OKZ43-0002Y3-VD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:44:09 -0400 Original-Received: from sun60.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.128.137]:53196) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OKZ43-0002Xk-M9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:44:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [147.188.128.127] (helo=bham.ac.uk) by sun60.bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1OKZ40-0007jn-O5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:44:04 +0100 Original-Received: from mx1.cs.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.192.53]) by bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OKZ40-0004jG-EC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:44:04 +0100 Original-Received: from wallace.cs.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.193.15] helo=MARUTI.cs.bham.ac.uk) by mx1.cs.bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1OKZ40-0000JP-90; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:44:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.1.90a under 23.2.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:125513 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > I think "screen lines" and "visual lines" should be the same, yes. > "continuation lines" refer specifically to screen lines that are > created because of wrapping (i.e. are not displayed on the same > visual line as the beginning of the logical line). I am thinking differently. Not just the choice of the terms, but the way things have been laid out in the manual seems to suggest that there are two different things going on. Some of the problems seem to be because the different ideas have been fused based on some extraneous implementation considerations. The two ideas are visual line mode (section 18.8) and logical line mode (which is the opposite of visual line mode, discussed in section 7.8). The visual line mode user is just dealing with blobs of contiguous text. The text is presented in lines, which are "real" and used for editing. If you want to call these blobs of text "logical lines", be my guest, but they don't really think of these things as lines. "Visual lines" exist in this world. The logical line mode user is dealing with real logical lines. The screen lines in terms of which the logical lines are presented are a necessity of life, but they are not the real focus. (Imagine looking at a byte-code logical line in the debug mode, split across 20 different screen lines. When do you ever want to navigate through those screen lines?) Once you set up this mental model of visual line mode and logical line mode, it stands to reason that *all* the movement operations in the visual line mode should be by visual lines, and *all* the movement operations in the logical line mode should be by logical lines. The `line-move-visual' option is an interloper which has no reason to exist. So, I am proposing that you get rid of the `line-move-visual' as a user option and revert C-n and C-p to act in the logical/visual manner in their appropriate modes. You will make a lot of long-time Emacs users a lot happier. Cheers, Uday PS. The comp.emacs thread that prompted this observation: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.emacs/browse_thread/thread/43549e055d64908b#