Re: C-n and C-a

[Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org>]

>> 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.

In addition to inconsistencies and lack of convenient key bindings
there are also problems with the used terminology.  There are
two similar confusing names:

    line-move-visual
    visual-line-mode

The former defines half-real/half-screen line motion mode,
and the latter has a name that says nothing to most users.

I think if we want to achieve simplicity and intuitiveness
then we should have a mode

    word-wrap-mode

with a pair of variables to define variations for key bindings
and visual appearance.

By default, `word-wrap-mode' could bind C-n/C-p and C-a/C-e to
visual line motion commands, and also provide alternative keys
for real line motion commands when `line-move-visual' is non-nil.
But the nil value of `line-move-visual' could reverse the meaning
of these key bindings.

Another variant is to define a mode

    line-wrap-mode

with C-n/C-p and C-a/C-e bound to visual line motion commands and
`line-move-visual' behaving as described above.  And additionally
it could provide a variable `word-wrap' to define wrapping boundaries
(word vs non-word).

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/