From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Questioning the new behavior of `open-line'. Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:52:17 +0100 Message-ID: <87twosp5ke.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87vb98csu1.fsf@red-bean.com> <87h9kscqig.fsf@red-bean.com> <83vb98jqwp.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2poba1s.fsf@red-bean.com> <83si4cjnyw.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447278927 4608 80.91.229.3 (11 Nov 2015 21:55:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Karl Fogel , bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 11 22:55:26 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwdMR-0000Dk-7P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:55:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43211 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwdMQ-0006X4-LR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:55:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50511) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwdML-0006Tp-Ui for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:55:19 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwdMK-0006tG-KY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:55:17 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:33728) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwdMJ-0006s1-4q; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:55:15 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47546 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwdMI-0001kK-59; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:55:14 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CE840DF975; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:52:17 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:17:44 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:194161 Archived-At: John Wiegley writes: >>>>>> Eli Zaretskii writes: > >> Maybe I'm missing something, but I think this behavior doesn't happen when >> electric-indent-mode is off, which it was in previous versions of Emacs. >> Isn't that true? > > Correct. We have several things in play here: > > 1. When electric-indent-mode is off, everything is fine. > > 2. When electric-indent-mode is on, C-o behaves in an unexpected fashion. > > 3. We should fix C-o when electric-indent-mode is on, so its behavior is not > affected by electric-indent-mode. > > 4. We should disable electric-indent-mode by default. > > Since I wasn't present for the discussion when electric-indent-mode was > enabled by default, I'd like to reopen that discussion with regard to 25.1. > Probably on a separate thread from this one. I'm reasonably fine with electric-indent-mode by default I think. But _exactly_ when electric-indent-mode is on, the need for a dumb C-o is largest for me. -- David Kastrup