Re: please make line-move-visual nil

["Andrew W. Nosenko" <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Andrew W. Nosenko
<andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Setting line-move-visual on a
>> per-mode basis is a excellent middle ground that will make ALL parties
>> happy.
>
> Please NO!!!!
>
>
> First at all, after binding additional pair (M-down, M-up) to the
> "phisical" lines motion,

Sorry.  Paragraph above ("First at all...") is just artifact,
forgorren to be deleted from the "draft".

>
> In short: "magic" and unpredictable changing of behavior iis very
> inconeinient.  At least I found it that.
>
> You can argue that it would not be "magic" or unpredictable, but
> indeed based on a mode or mode-deriviation.  But could you predict
> (just as "stupid" user, not as mode's author), what deriviation tree
> has Occur mode, for example?  Or Shell Output?  (Ok, I know that Shell
> Command Output buffer has Fundamental mode, and what?)
>
> Even for C code it is very useful for me to have visual navigation.
>
> But I understand your point.  Moreover, some time ago I also was very
> frustrated, because convinient way for "phisical" line navigation is
> no less.  And solution is very simple: just give best from both
> worlds: above in this thread alredy mentioned that AquaEmacs has
> different bindings for C-n/C-p vs. down/up.  I also just bound
> "phisical" line movements to the M-down and M-up in addition to the
> "visual" on down and up, and have now conventient and similar bindings
> to the both movement modes.  Try it!  Just don't throw away only
> because it is unusual for you.  Try it first for some time (e.g. 1
> week)!
>
> --
> Andrew W. Nosenko <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com>
>



-- 
Andrew W. Nosenko <andrew.w.nosenko@gmail.com>