From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Wiegley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Questioning the new behavior of `open-line'. Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:17:44 -0800 Message-ID: References: <87vb98csu1.fsf@red-bean.com> <87h9kscqig.fsf@red-bean.com> <83vb98jqwp.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2poba1s.fsf@red-bean.com> <83si4cjnyw.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447273107 6470 80.91.229.3 (11 Nov 2015 20:18:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:18:27 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Karl Fogel , bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 11 21:18:20 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwbqU-0007UJ-On for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:18:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42760 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwbqU-0001kl-JD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:18:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51669) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwbqO-0001kM-O9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:18:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwbqK-0006ug-BX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:18:12 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]:33242) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zwbq0-0006t2-Vr; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:17:49 -0500 Original-Received: by pabfh17 with SMTP id fh17so40330695pab.0; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:17:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:message-id:references :user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=k5UnWFTj1/YJRuUFkBugcxBGFrb2gcKEv2x4yDEI69w=; b=c5tLZnCRlTrcY/Y6ESsJoiPIsdyclvhByAdO/UqAI4u7J23IK2muvwqK92zsqYb78P BdN89aZyD4tWoMbbvXC/RRJI7mtaD0UsmHWDk1+2CZa7bOxpXex9/iw4oPBrwFA3xWGz B82hTIzJPV7Lg1Ur2NU4ZjUdfj+ve8L+NMpMQWsJOdM+f6NAwkwF24gywh41l/Ny67U3 tCc290MXHu3crOX3gwv9vJNV4MjdUAHVlU9ywOJUfP94pCzvBmZWqKk1gzB5p6oQjvH0 YQ0yVbSzwvT+agluCNnfkinfh4BDvrP8C00fb1m9ZbdpkZIdXfBueGnrAabQq8Bnvl6K 7xdA== X-Received: by 10.68.125.197 with SMTP id ms5mr17159343pbb.161.1447273068189; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:17:48 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from Vulcan.attlocal.net (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id sb6sm10837565pbc.66.2015.11.11.12.17.46 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:17:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Original-From: "John Wiegley" Original-Received: by Vulcan.attlocal.net (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0E4771055F02A; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:17:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83si4cjnyw.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:11:19 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Karl Fogel , bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:194133 Archived-At: >>>>> Eli Zaretskii writes: > Maybe I'm missing something, but I think this behavior doesn't happen when > electric-indent-mode is off, which it was in previous versions of Emacs. > Isn't that true? Correct. We have several things in play here: 1. When electric-indent-mode is off, everything is fine. 2. When electric-indent-mode is on, C-o behaves in an unexpected fashion. 3. We should fix C-o when electric-indent-mode is on, so its behavior is not affected by electric-indent-mode. 4. We should disable electric-indent-mode by default. Since I wasn't present for the discussion when electric-indent-mode was enabled by default, I'd like to reopen that discussion with regard to 25.1. Probably on a separate thread from this one. John