From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: `C-b' is backward-char, `left' is left-char - why? Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:10:32 +0300 Message-ID: <83oc2ccign.fsf@gnu.org> References: <6F4054004B154CFB8E2753172D316C13@us.oracle.com> <4DE4F8D0.7010800@lanl.gov> <82y61l16bg.fsf@gmail.com> <87vcwo40tn.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <834o48f6sa.fsf@gnu.org> <8762on3rvj.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83lixjdkae.fsf@gnu.org> <201106051651.p55GpANm013542@beta.mvs.co.il> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1307293974 18074 80.91.229.12 (5 Jun 2011 17:12:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 17:12:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dak@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: ehud@unix.mvs.co.il Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jun 05 19:12:50 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QTGsa-000455-A7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 19:12:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43236 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QTGsZ-0000nC-Cm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:12:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38009) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QTGqW-0000Rs-O4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:10:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QTGqV-0001BN-08 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:10:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:42427) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QTGqR-0001AZ-Ul; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 13:10:36 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LMB00G00U1KXB00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:10:33 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.223.140]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LMB00GEGUDKDM70@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 05 Jun 2011 20:10:33 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <201106051651.p55GpANm013542@beta.mvs.co.il> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 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:140203 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 19:51:10 +0300 > From: "Ehud Karni" > Cc: dak@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 18:08:57 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > DK> If this is a LR paragraph (like it likely is), left will move right > DK> in the RRRRRR section and vice versa. > > > > True. > > > DK> This is what Hebrew writers expect? > > > > Yes. > > I don't agree with you. This is not what I expect, nor any bidi > novice, this is what Microsoft and openoffice has forced all the > bidi users to live with. Let me rephrase: that's what users expect because they were brainwashed by MS and OpenOffice (and a few more apps that followed suit). Users who are brainwash-resistant want strict visual cursor motion. OK? > I expect a strict visual movement, i.e. the right arrow moves the > cursor to the right, left arrow moves to the left, no matter what > the language or the paragraph direction. It's possible to implement this as well, although a bit more tricky, e.g. because it's not clear how to behave when the next glyph to the right/left is on a display string or some such. I also expect difficulties in continuation lines and such likes. But I still maintain that the decision to implement the logical movement first was the right one, both because most users are of the "brainwashed" variety, and because it is needed for various Emacs features, such as shift-selections. > I think I know why Microsoft (and following them, openoffice) did > this non intuitive choice - They use shift+arrow to select text > strings and the string must be in adjacent memory locations. So does Emacs.