From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: line-number-mode at EOB Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:51:22 +0300 Message-ID: <83bmohdcid.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83tw35thxw.fsf@gnu.org> <87tw35cc70.fsf@rosalinde> <83injktb9p.fsf@gnu.org> <87k240xhk6.fsf@rosalinde> <87k236vh7p.fsf_-_@rosalinde> <878tjlc04f.fsf@rosalinde> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1500389544 15865 195.159.176.226 (18 Jul 2017 14:52:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:52:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 18 16:52:17 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTrC-0003Z4-Kn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:52:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56980 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTrH-0006kd-Qg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:52:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40703) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTqF-0006jY-SV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:51:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTqB-0005sk-Qj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:51:15 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:53795) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTqB-0005sg-ND; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:51:11 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1222 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTqB-0006lr-7V; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:51:11 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:30:36 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:216839 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:30:36 -0400 > > I think if we want to make things consistent with the > display-line-numbers, then it's display-line-numbers which should be > changed to also display the number on the "non-existing" line after > a final LF. But there's no line there. Why should we have a number where there's no line? > If that's too difficult It's not too easy, because that line is identical to all the rest below it, as far as the display engine is concerned: they are all "at EOB".