From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: arrow keys vs. C-f/b/n/p Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:26:29 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87d3w2ncqs.fsf_-_@lola.goethe.zz> <87iq5py7xk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83fx0slhxn.fsf@gnu.org> <83pqzwjkn9.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxv0je2b.fsf@gnu.org> <83eigcja4r.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276374421 5786 80.91.229.12 (12 Jun 2010 20:27:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:27:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 12 22:27:00 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 1ONXIA-0008Gp-Cy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 22:26:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59147 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONXI8-00088r-A4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:26:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54127 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONXI3-00088Z-CS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:26:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONXI2-0002q3-9Q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:26:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gw0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]:57785) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONXI2-0002po-7A; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:26:50 -0400 Original-Received: by gwaa18 with SMTP id a18so1359580gwa.0 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:26:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=WUbJ5pnDnnowpRIlsGJ0KzI0EBy6K2tScv9psOFVk+I=; b=lI8zShsf5z0u/UhXZgqB6OVGmimeXWwlV7zRGKxfaR07WES0xnNeT4FC+b6xUzyLew 4VpEh3xvDfDS7EdJWwH0pmpkJ7W1pd0KIzULFc5pC0naOZnjmA/ZNs8Fdp8Iwwtz4M/J QUgEnbJSu1oN6FryLmprAtEqwIRn1HbvYhsLk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=qk+mlHRoTQ73vMeU54LHx1hnT5N1vj7dSfdl4D0kFzZPBkuPHqaN7Pb8NoIPSDhjYD /mvN+c//pPYzMTg0PAZWWS3BZHAIas1dHjOsan5xxReCMmy/2dyQHrBmtZEpQ54G6mjp zA+bKRRWMeHoJq0XDbGaN9tRtt3QAj3RGFp4s= Original-Received: by 10.101.205.6 with SMTP id h6mr3245947anq.179.1276374409108; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:26:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83eigcja4r.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:125852 Archived-At: On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> When selecting a region with the two end points in parts with >> different directions you instead split the visual region on screen. > > The important part is that the logical-order region is contiguous. > The seeming ``split'' on the screen is just the effect produced by > reordering characters for display. > >> However it has nothing at all to do with the visual movements when >> using the arrow keys. That movement can (and in my opinion should) >> still be visual. > > See my question in my other mail: with visual-order movement, the > region highlight and other similar features will behave > non-sensically. So this is perhaps the most essential part of the argument for not having the arrow keys moving visually. As I said I think your solution with one internal region split visually on screen is the best solution. You have convinced me of that. I can now see the argument better for not letting the arrow keys move visually, but I think I still disagree on that part. The reason I disagree is the same as I stated from the beginning and that was explained on the web page that said READING IS NOT CURSORING. Moving the cursor depends on lower level memory in our brains. And of course: without letting the arrow keys move visually on the screen there is no easy way at all to move visually on the screen. This is actually a bit fun. Try creating with only blanks, just spaces, tabs and newlines. Set some of the those chars to arabic and let some be latin. Now try moving around the page using only the visual keys. Try to go to the end of the page. (I suggest this as an alternative to sudoku...) As I said before: extending the region has nothing in per se with letting the arrow keys move visually. The arrow keys is instead an established way to move visually. And that is needed sometimes.