From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: comint-carriage-motion, and option nomenclature Date: 28 Aug 2002 13:48:30 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <20020827212651.143738.FMU965@piglet.prv.splode.com> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1030510207 4704 127.0.0.1 (28 Aug 2002 04:50:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 04:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17jumH-0001DH-00 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 06:50:01 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17jvHu-0000gs-00 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:22:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17junb-0005hA-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:51:23 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17jul0-0005eg-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:48:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17juky-0005eU-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:48:42 -0400 Original-Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp ([210.143.35.52]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17jukx-0005eP-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:48:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mailgate4.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.195]) by TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W01080315) with ESMTP id g7S4mW420558; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:48:32 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mailsv4.nec.co.jp (mailgate51.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.190]) by mailgate4.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) with ESMTP id g7S4mVg27215; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:48:31 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp ([10.30.114.133]) by mailsv4.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W-MAILSV4-NEC) with ESMTP id g7S4mVh17253; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:48:31 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (mcspd15 [10.30.114.174]) by mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (8.10.2+Sun/3.7Wlsi_mx_6.0) with ESMTP id g7S4mUs18948; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:48:30 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 5111D36F2; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:48:30 +0900 (JST) Original-To: Noah Friedman System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <20020827212651.143738.FMU965@piglet.prv.splode.com> Original-Lines: 34 Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:7017 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:7017 Noah Friedman writes: > The first is that currently, when I run a shell that has onlcr set on the > tty, I can't see any output in the buffer at all. I think this is because > comint-carriage-motion needs to (goto-char start) before calling > skip-chars-forward to look for \r$. I couldn't actually manage to reproduce the problem experimentally, but I think you're right about the solution, so I changed it. > It's probably too late to change the variables I mentioned, but I'm making > an appeal that the variable `comint-inhibit-carriage-motion' be renamed to > `comint-enable-carriage-motion' and the default changed to t. And that all > new user options in the future use "enable-", not "inhibit-". First, `comint-enable-carriage-motion' is not really intended to be a user option, but something for derived modes to set. Second, I think you're wrong about `enable-' vs. `inhibit-'. There's a tension between naming options to always refer to a "positive" action, and naming options such that they refer to a change from the "normal" situation. I don't think there's any mechanical way to decide which is right, and that we simply have to depend on programmer's judgement. In the case of the comint-carriage-motion, `comint-inhibit-carriage-motion' feels right, whereas `comint-enable-carriage-motion' sounds wrong -- it sounds like it refers to an exceptional case. Obviously you disagree, but I guess that's the point: it's a matter of taste and judgement, not something amenable to a simple rule. -Miles -- Occam's razor split hairs so well, I bought the whole argument!