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: Certain numbers of special forms cause changing behaviour on function calls in --batch Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:13:11 +0300 Message-ID: <83r3bevhfc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8760stvwzp.fsf@web.de> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467299634 10182 80.91.229.3 (30 Jun 2016 15:13:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:13:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: me@wilfred.me.uk, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andreas =?windows-1252?Q?R=F6hler?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 30 17:13:49 2016 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 1bIdez-0008Js-R8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:13:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50857 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIdez-0004UF-4k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51868) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIdes-0004U1-KX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:39 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIdeq-0004MS-JT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:37 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:41364) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bIdem-0004GM-IE; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:32 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4549 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1bIdel-00057t-4Y; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:31 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Andreas =?windows-1252?Q?R=F6hler?= on Thu, 30 Jun 2016 07:58:57 +0200) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:204989 Archived-At: > From: Andreas Röhler > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 07:58:57 +0200 > Cc: Wilfred Hughes > > A plausible guess. `move-end-of-line' is obviously designed for > interactive use. It deals with var `line-move-visual' for example. If that's the reason, setting line-move-visual to nil in the interactive session will produce the same "buggy" behavior. Does it? > Are there reasons not to employ `end-of-line'? Compare their doc strings, and you will see the reason. One moves to the visual end, the other to the logical end. This bug, whatever it is, will not be solved by guessing. It will be solved by a reproducible recipe and debugging.