From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:17:05 -0400 Message-ID: References: <2cd46e7f0608310848l743430e9ia7a1d45e22428083@mail.gmail.com> <2cd46e7f0608312339s16a2a101p8c30840bbdeb0d22@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1157296720 4163 80.91.229.2 (3 Sep 2006 15:18:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 15:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, miles@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 03 17:18:40 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GJtjx-0008CQ-PW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:18:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GJtjx-0006HT-2g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:18:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GJtid-0005UR-Kc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:17:07 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GJtic-0005Tg-UH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:17:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GJtic-0005TP-Kk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:17:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GJtsw-0007FJ-IL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:27:46 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1GJtib-0003Yt-TS; Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:17:05 -0400 Original-To: "Ken Manheimer" In-reply-to: <2cd46e7f0608312339s16a2a101p8c30840bbdeb0d22@mail.gmail.com> (ken.manheimer@gmail.com) 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:59280 Archived-At: i want fields respected for motion within a line - specifically, when moving from the right of the boundary towards the boundary - without sacrificing retention of the column when moving between lines. that's the level of control that line-move-ignore-fields provides. That is clear enough. So, can we find specific cases where some other incompatible behavior is positively desirable? It would be useful for people to look for the other facilities that use fields, to see what cases there are where we would not want this behavior. Miles found one: The current interaction between line-movement and fields is intentional, so that "column" preservation does not cause, for instance, the cursor to move into the prompt in the minibuffer when you're editing a multline minibuffer entry. In that case, we don't want point to move vertically upward into the field at the start of the line. However, the current behavior in that case is not good. When I use M-: to make a minibuffer, and then enter This is a test of multiple lines I find that C-p from the second line always puts point right after the prompt, regardless of where point was in the second line. I think the behavior we want in the minibuffer is that point should move vertically up _unless_ that would leave it inside the prompt, in which case it goes to the end of the prompt. Ken, would that behavior be good for allout?