From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: please make line-move-visual nil Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 13:46:26 -0700 Message-ID: <2E97428C6AB640F0A247A79C45BBC885@us.oracle.com> References: <23521879.post@talk.nabble.com><7b501d5c0905131659r1d79ec56s5a59f76e4713edf9@mail.gmail.com><23532135.post@talk.nabble.com> <87tz3odq3l.fsf@iki.fi><23538683.post@talk.nabble.com> <87eiuru24b.fsf@iki.fi><39370.130.55.118.19.1242397867.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov><48914.130.55.118.19.1242592120.squirrel@webmail.lanl.gov><66C6BA04EBCF4B6DAED69E851627D852@us.oracle.com> <87eiue83i7.fsf@cyd.mit.edu><87my92dmdt.fsf@cyd.mit.edu><87eiudewtq.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp><831vqdubqy.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6slrl0k.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1243284451 1836 80.91.229.12 (25 May 2009 20:47:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 20:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: stephen@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" , Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 25 22:47:23 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1M8h4o-0006Zh-UC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 22:47:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44508 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M8h4o-0003XK-EL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 16:47:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M8h3w-0002rm-Q2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 16:46:24 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M8h3r-0002pE-W1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 16:46:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45383 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M8h3r-0002p4-Ly for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 16:46:19 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet12.oracle.com ([141.146.126.234]:60828) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M8h3l-0008U6-Q8; Mon, 25 May 2009 16:46:14 -0400 Original-Received: from rgminet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by acsinet12.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n4PKjr40024393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 25 May 2009 20:45:54 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt005.oracle.com (abhmt005.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by rgminet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n4PKkAJ8031461; Mon, 25 May 2009 20:46:11 GMT Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/98.210.250.59) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 25 May 2009 13:46:06 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83y6slrl0k.fsf@gnu.org> Thread-Index: AcndduS5GcjBMsU1RNiKpDZ5ZhRFbgAAdUjw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Source-IP: abhmt005.oracle.com [141.146.116.14] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A010205.4A1B038F.0241:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:111088 Archived-At: > > Pretest is not for changing the default behavior. They are for > > fixing bugs before the release. > > > > And people have found that this is a bug, so they are voicing their > > objections again, since they were ignored last time. > > A deliberate change in behavior is not a bug, as long as the only > objection is "I don't like it". A deliberate change in behavior is not a good change, as long as the only reason supporting it is "I like it". Yes, let's get back to _reasons_ for the change in default behavior, _reasons_ against it, and perhaps discussion of alternatives, such as using different defaults for different kinds of buffers. Discussion of reasons is good. Proposals of alternatives and their discussion is good. We can note that (a) some people like the currently proposed change (yes, it is just a proposal - Emacs 23 has not yet been released) and (b) some people dislike it. Noting that is helpful, as a reminder that we are not quite there yet. But we need to move beyond just that notice. That notice shows only that we have a problem; it does not, in itself, point to a solution.