From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: key-binding for cycle-spacing Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:11:44 +0000 Message-ID: <20140130061144.GA2801@acm.acm> References: <20140129202810.GA3092@acm.acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391062513 10086 80.91.229.3 (30 Jan 2014 06:15:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:15:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 30 07:15:20 2014 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 1W8kuE-0000Kn-Tj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:15:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46609 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8kuE-0006PE-5S for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:15:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35292) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8ku4-0006L5-JU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:15:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8ktx-0004pE-A8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:15:08 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:47447 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W8ktx-0004p7-1R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:15:01 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 40443 invoked by uid 3782); 30 Jan 2014 06:14:59 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9518E7A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.81.142.122]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:14:58 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 2861 invoked by uid 1000); 30 Jan 2014 06:11:44 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 8.x X-Received-From: 193.149.48.1 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:169229 Archived-At: Hi, Glenn. On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 09:37:36PM -0500, Glenn Morris wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> If you have not used it, the first time you call it in a consecutive > >> sequence, it acts like `just-one-space'. > > Not quite. It's more complicated than that. > Please say how (were you referring to Johan's point?), otherwise this is > not helpful. If you type M-9 M-SPC, with `just-one-space' you'll end up with 9 spaces. With `cycle-spacing', you'll usually get 9, sometime you'll get zero. > > `cycle-spacing' has lots of complicated edge cases. > Could you give say two examples of such cases? One is above. A second one is what happens if you give a different argument on the second invocation from the first. A third one is what happens when there's just a tab in the buffer, which occupies one visible space. > You could avoid all the extra functionality by simply not using the > command more than once in a row (a no-op for just-one-space). Not quite. The first time round, `cycle-spacing''s behaviour is different according to how much space is already there. > > It seems to violate the KISS principle. > So do many things. cc-bytecomp is a favourite of mine. Yes, there are many things in CC Mode which are complicated, and believe me, I suffer because of it. But `cycle-spacing' is complicated at the basic user level and doesn't seem to have any utility. > > Please keep M-SPC bound to `just-one-space'. > For ever, or for now? For ever. :-) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).