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: Questioning the new behavior of `open-line'. Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:37:43 +0000 Message-ID: <20151111203743.GF5669@acm.fritz.box> 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; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447274170 23720 80.91.229.3 (11 Nov 2015 20:36:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:36:10 +0000 (UTC) To: Eli Zaretskii , Karl Fogel , bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 11 21:36:00 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 1Zwc7a-0000kS-8z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:35:58 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42835 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zwc7Z-0002vN-PB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:35:57 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55909) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zwc7T-0002tM-Em for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:35:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zwc7Q-0002r7-3c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:35:51 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.muc.de ([193.149.48.3]:49224) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zwc7P-0002qs-Eg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:35:47 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 4349 invoked by uid 3782); 11 Nov 2015 20:35:46 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p548A5911.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.138.89.17]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:35:45 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 23750 invoked by uid 1000); 11 Nov 2015 20:37:43 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x X-Received-From: 193.149.48.3 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:194137 Archived-At: Hello, John. On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:17:44PM -0800, John Wiegley wrote: > >>>>> 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. Agreed. > 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. Just a tip from somebody who was involved in that discussion - you might come to regret that wish. Could I suggest you pore over the archives before reopening this discussion? My feeling was and is that enabling e-i-m was the right decision, even though I was unhappy about certain aspects of it. I'm not sure I want to enlarge on that. > Probably on a separate thread from this one. > John -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).