Re: Lines again

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

>> I think "screen lines" and "visual lines" should be the same, yes.
>> "continuation lines" refer specifically to screen lines that are
>> created because of wrapping (i.e. are not displayed on the same
>> visual line as the beginning of the logical line).
> I am thinking differently.

I just explained the way those terms are used, and from what you go on
writing, you don't seem to disagree.

[...]
> So, I am proposing that you get rid of the `line-move-visual' as a
> user option and revert C-n and C-p to act in the logical/visual manner
> in their appropriate modes.  You will make a lot of long-time Emacs
> users a lot happier.

Ah, so that's what it's about.  Then thanks for your input, but we've
been through that discussion too many times already.  Yes, it's
inconsistent, yes, it's a compromise, no not everybody likes it.
Then (setq line-move-visual nil) in your .emacs and live happily
ever after.

WRT to keyboard macros, yes it's a source of problems, but I think the
solution should go further than just tweaking line-move-visual.


        Stefan


PS: Interestingly, Emacs-2[12] already did a form of line-move-visual,
just that their code was doing it in a too naive way which only tried to
pay attention to images and invisible text).