From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: please make line-move-visual nil Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:52:47 +0000 Message-ID: <20090526095247.GA2919@muc.de> References: <39370.130.55.118.19.1242397867.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <48914.130.55.118.19.1242592120.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov> <66C6BA04EBCF4B6DAED69E851627D852@us.oracle.com> <18970.25868.549514.194223@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1243331572 9485 80.91.229.12 (26 May 2009 09:52:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ams@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , drew.adams@oracle.com, Miles Bader To: Ulrich Mueller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 26 11:52:44 2009 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 4.50) id 1M8tKt-0002sA-VQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 May 2009 11:52:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53457 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M8tKt-0005Bw-Ff for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 26 May 2009 05:52:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M8tKL-0004xL-Jl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2009 05:52:09 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M8tKF-0004sz-RG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2009 05:52:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50438 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M8tKE-0004sk-Q8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2009 05:52:02 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:3656 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M8tKD-0004wv-NX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 May 2009 05:52:02 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 69651 invoked by uid 3782); 26 May 2009 09:51:59 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E500B3.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.0.179]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 26 May 2009 11:51:55 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 3683 invoked by uid 1000); 26 May 2009 09:52:47 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18970.25868.549514.194223@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 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:111106 Archived-At: On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:29:48AM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 25 May 2009, Miles Bader wrote: > > "Alfred M. Szmidt" writes: > >> This is not a useful way to carry a conversation. People, lots of > >> people, have complained about this behaviour, so it needs to be > >> re-examined. > > I don't really get the impression that "Lots of people" are > > complaining actually (seems more like a few people, at high volume). > Add me to the list of people complaining, then. I think that it's > counter-intuitive to move point horizontally when vertical movement was > asked for. The default should be changed back to nil. That's most people's reasoning, I think. Trouble is, they disagree about what "horizontal" and "vertical" mean; is it "horizontal" in a logical line, or "horizontal" in a visible line? Which comes back to the question "what do we mean by a line?". I don't do much with wide buffers - occasionally I read log files with long lines, occasionally I have to edit text in the paragraph-is-a-single-very-long-line style. For both of these scenarios, I prefer line-move-visual enabled, since I find the shock of C-n "jumping three lines" very disconcerting. But that's just my personal preference; I appreciate other people's arguments for leaving l-m-visual nil. The fact that somebody like Drew, who's normally so calm and collected, is so steadfastly opposed to the change is a strong argument in itself. I disagree with Eli that defaults are "only" defaults: they're the settings we impose on new users, and are critically important. If they're bad defaults, they could irritate and exasperate users for months or years before those users eventually change them. (C-n adding new lines onto the ends of files (which was the default in Emacs <= 20) springs to mind here). Add me to the list of people emphatically and loudly abstaining. It's important to get this right, though. > Also, at former times the user community was asked before such UI > changes were done (I remember polls about C-x 0, M-g, C-x C-w, and > C-x C-q at least). Why isn't this done any more? This practice was (tacitly) abandoned in spring 2008, when a much more massive change in Emacs's defaults was committed before discussions about it had really got underway. Stefan and Yidong did not require that change to be reverted during those discussions. > Ulrich -- Alan Mackenzie (Nürnberg).