Re: C-n and C-a

[Tassilo Horn <tassilo@member.fsf.org>]

Richard M Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

Hi Richard,

> The new definitions of C-n and C-p seem to work reasonably
> conveniently with the very long lines that non-Emacs-users often
> write.  However, it is very counterintuitive that C-a and C-e have not
> been changed in the same way.

I mentioned this inconsistencies before in
<874p55z20j.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de>.  I was told that the current behavior
was due to a consensus.  But still I don't like it, so I switch on
`visual-line-mode' where everything operates consistently on screen
lines.

IMHO without `visual-line-mode' everything should work on real lines,
with it turned on everything should work on screen lines (as it does
right now).  This half screen half real line behavior is somewhat
confusing.

> I think they too should be changed to operate on screen lines;
> that's a necessary part of the change that was already made.

You can have this by turning on `visual-line-mode'.

> If C-a and C-e are changed this way, we would want some way to go to
> the beginning and end of the real line.  Here are some ideas:
>
> * Make C-u C-a and C-u C-e do this.  I suspect nobody uses
> those combinations with their current meanings.

Yes, that would be ok.  A bit more convenient would be to type `C-a'
twice, which would toggle between screen and real line beginning.

> * Make M-{ and M-} treat each line as a paragraph.  That would be the
> right thing for them to do in such text.  This would require either a
> minor mode or detecting long-line text heuristically.

I wouldn't like that, because it would require that texts one writes
have to obey the convention that each paragraph has to be on one line.
Especially when working with others this cannot be enforced while an
empty line to mark paragraphs in pretty standard.

Bye,
Tassilo