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: Emacs's handling of line numbers [from bug#5042] Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:06:48 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87zl0v6hd3.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <837ho6czb6.fsf@gnu.org> <8339yucbsg.fsf@gnu.org> <83wrw5bxkc.fsf@gnu.org> <83tyr9bgid.fsf@gnu.org> <83r5mcbqzo.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271923914 24476 80.91.229.12 (22 Apr 2010 08:11:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:11:54 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 22 10:11:51 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O4rVn-0005SJ-CN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:11:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38341 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O4rVm-0007ye-Md for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:11:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O4rRE-0005uJ-F7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:07:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56755 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O4rRB-0005tg-LY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:07:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O4rR9-00071A-AE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:07:05 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:52274) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O4rR8-00070x-VM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:07:03 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O4rR2-0003G1-IO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:06:56 +0200 Original-Received: from p5b2c2241.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.44.34.65]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:06:56 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p5b2c2241.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:06:56 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ connect(): No such file or directory Original-Lines: 25 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p5b2c2241.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.92 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:XpJspa8/j9ULghYxbKhLFdNho5c= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:124016 Archived-At: Mark Lillibridge writes: >> Moreover, I'm not sure I see the problem that is grave enough to >> justify this. The 3 examples you mentioned can be solved by >> programming the features to do what you want (I believe font-lock >> already solved it, albeit not too elegantly). I understand now the >> difference between two classes of use of restriction (thanks to all >> who labored to explain that to this old fart), but are there >> _practical_ use-cases where the current situation gets in our way so >> badly that such a new feature would be justified? I wonder. > > Personally, the problem I need fixed is that goto-line and linum > mode number lines inconsistently. Given that linum mode already > numbers the first line of a restriction starting with one and Info > mode looks weird if we start numbering at the beginning of the > physical buffer, I think the minimal change would be to change > goto-line to number lines so that the first line of the current > restriction is 1. I repeat my suggestion to let clone-indirect-buffer be able to clone just part of a buffer. Using this for info nodes and tar subfiles would yield perfectly consistent behavior for the user without narrowing. -- David Kastrup