From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17511: 24.4.50; `line-move-ignore-invisible': doc and purpose not clear Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 19:11:38 +0300 Message-ID: <8361l4e66d.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8c772b14-20d1-4e3a-9936-f81936c3d31b@default> <83a9age9dl.fsf@gnu.org> <547b37b1-f55b-45e9-8c89-eb9388580d36@default> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1400343146 30923 80.91.229.3 (17 May 2014 16:12:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 16:12:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17511@debbugs.gnu.org To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat May 17 18:12:19 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1WlhDd-0001ju-94 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 May 2014 18:12:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40724 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlhDc-0004HP-PV for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 17 May 2014 12:12:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36953) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlhDU-0004H4-QA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 17 May 2014 12:12:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlhDO-0007Yh-Tt for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 17 May 2014 12:12:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:52703) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlhDO-0007Yd-QX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 17 May 2014 12:12:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WlhDO-0004XO-Et for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 17 May 2014 12:12:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 16:12:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17511 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17511-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17511.140034311617429 (code B ref 17511); Sat, 17 May 2014 16:12:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17511) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 May 2014 16:11:56 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51580 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WlhDE-0004Wy-7G for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 17 May 2014 12:11:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout25.012.net.il ([80.179.55.181]:50497) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WlhD7-0004Wb-Dd for 17511@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 17 May 2014 12:11:49 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout25.012.net.il by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N5Q00A006UGBR00@mtaout25.012.net.il> for 17511@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 17 May 2014 19:08:40 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N5Q008US7IFRJ40@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Sat, 17 May 2014 19:08:40 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <547b37b1-f55b-45e9-8c89-eb9388580d36@default> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:89196 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 09:03:06 -0700 (PDT) > From: Drew Adams > Cc: 17511@debbugs.gnu.org > > > > (I don't think there should be a blank line after the first line, > > > but maybe that is just a mail artifact.) > > > > It's not; it's a standard formatting of a doc string, AFAIK. > > I don't think so. Perhaps I've been operating under a misconception > all these years. For Lisp code I've seen such a blank line only > occasionally (rarely), and nearly always in 3rd-party code and typically > from newbies. OK, I removed the empty line. > > > > > 2. The doc string speaks of invisible lines. But (elisp) `Invisible > > > > > Text' speaks of "invisible newlines" (not lines), which is presumably > > > > > something different (newline chars vs lines of any chars except > > > > > newline, possibly including the separating newlines). Are both true? > > > > > Which? > > > > > > > > I think the doc string now clarifies this as well. > > > > > > Yes, thanks. But the manual speaks only of invisible newlines, and to > > > me this part is not clear. > > > > The doc string now speaks about that as well. What's not clear about > > that? A newline is just a character, and as such can be invisible. > > I told you it was not clear to me, as one reader. Previously, the doc > string spoke only of invisible lines, and the manual spoke only of > invisible newlines. The doc string now mentions invisible newline > chars too - good. Does the manual mention invisible lines of text? I see no reason to mention invisible lines, because that might be confusing: what matters are not the lines, but the newlines. Therefore, the doc string now only talks about newlines, and the manual now says: Ordinarily, functions that operate on text or move point do not care whether the text is invisible, they process invisible characters and visible characters alike. The user-level line motion commands, such as @code{next-line}, @code{previous-line}, ignore invisible newlines if @code{line-move-ignore-invisible} is non-@code{nil} (the default), i.e., behave like these invisible newlines didn't exist in the buffer, but only because they are explicitly programmed to do so. > > > Yes, I sensed that. I found (find) the juxtaposition confusing. > > > Maybe separate the two discussions better, and perhaps give an example > > > of interaction (or lack thereof) between the two. > > > > It's a separate paragraph already, and I removed the leading > > "However", which might hint on some too tight relation. > > I'm sure it's better. If you find it clear enough in this respect now, > that's good enough for me. Feel free to file another bug report if you find the new text in the manual still confusing about the relation between line-move-ignore-invisible and point adjustments.