From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: move_it_vertically_backward question Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 13:35:07 +0200 Message-ID: <83k0g2b0yc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87lf0pw78r.fsf.ref@yahoo.com> <837dc7l2pa.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilvqty24.fsf@yahoo.com> <8335muj8zk.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7bang3d.fsf@yahoo.com> <83mtl1j527.fsf@gnu.org> <87zgp1mldh.fsf@yahoo.com> <83tuf9gdg5.fsf@gnu.org> <87pmpwkikp.fsf@yahoo.com> <83mtl0hnm5.fsf@gnu.org> <87czlwkfpk.fsf@yahoo.com> <8735mskal2.fsf@yahoo.com> <83ee6che8h.fsf@gnu.org> <87y24kisgf.fsf@yahoo.com> <838rwkhcqb.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1achulq.fsf@yahoo.com> <83pmpub41v.fsf@gnu.org> <871r2afarc.fsf@yahoo.com> <83mtkyb2er.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8zmduvr.fsf@yahoo.com> <83lf0ib17y.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1aadu8z.fsf@yahoo.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="594"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 18 12:36:35 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1myY0x-000ATX-5k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2021 12:36:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53242 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1myY0v-0001Nf-EJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2021 06:36:33 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37040) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1myXzp-0000aY-P9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Dec 2021 06:35:26 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=47742 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1myXzp-0003nS-GL; Sat, 18 Dec 2021 06:35:25 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=SWaOihab/QvoIqoMRgbNK0uNAlXlSzTHG194Amt0H9Y=; b=coZQ82inka+1 GDeysSLsK8ywgAJdnH7HJcqF0gwDsGr1joBE1UuCOQpJqAP/G2ZOl1t6f+3Kimjx5pZ7JCfCBZhMU P8qWN6elB/GUu2a9guSa+uYvsFOOXQj0JqQLaK9KXirLMn9q/nrMXPT8iL05eByc3ghkFCPtRevup G7V+YVZVPimOKTI5WDhKmKbzDfoaMcmXrYLZZ7ghv8SkX9P5mPQnQd3xHKqrPL0PpRyEwWFNFrCzf 3600RVLkmKfhuY1Ut75dMbShRK0kXJlScNAIdE/8cOxk9vSSop4mreN54AV9SzJcayYP6AkgrrdRy gt9tXGkxrk7enarZs6/HUA==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=2258 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1myXzk-0006IV-2X; Sat, 18 Dec 2021 06:35:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87r1aadu8z.fsf@yahoo.com> (message from Po Lu on Sat, 18 Dec 2021 19:31:40 +0800) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:282283 Archived-At: > From: Po Lu > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 19:31:40 +0800 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> From: Po Lu > >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2021 19:18:00 +0800 > >> > >> Eli Zaretskii writes: > >> > >> > Why do you need a flag variable at all? Cannot 'doff' serve as that > >> > flag? Or, if not, why not test the argument -- it's just one NILP > >> > test, after all? > >> > >> I get your point now. Is there any other problem with this patch, or > >> can I install it now? > > > ??? I thought we still need to get the move_it_vertically part right, > > and then review the documentation? > > Yes, but they're separate patches that add different (and independent) > features. I'm talking about the patch that adds `ignore-line-at-end', > whose documentation I don't really see a problem with. OK.