Re: Questioning the new behavior of `open-line'.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:58:15 -0600
> Cc: Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com>
> 
> John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>> Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> writes:
> >
> >>> 3. I think, when electric-indent-mode is on, open-line should indent the
> >>> line that was created below if it isn't empty. May I go ahead?
> >
> >> Had I seen that question at the time, I would have answered "Oh, please
> >> don't" :-). But maybe mine is a minority opinion? I encounter the new
> >> behavior several times a day, and don't like it; turning off
> >> `electric-indent-mode' seems like a drastic solution. But if people
> >> generally like this new behavior, I'll certainly live with being in the
> >> minority and figure out the appropritae local customization.
> >
> >I too would want the original C-o behavior. If you're using it an column 0,
> >then the action of C-o is to create a new line, not to adjust indentation of
> >the line you were on before the command.
> >
> >Now, you *could* have the new behavior using `electric-indent-functions',
> >checking if the current command is `open-line'. So we're not making it
> >impossible to do. But we shouldn't change long-standing behavior like this, in
> >a subtle way that many users wouldn't know how to undo.
> 
> Yeah, my feelings too.  If `electric-indent-mode' does anything here, it should move point to the appropriate indentation column *on the new, blank line*, while leaving existing text however it was.

People who don't like electric-indent-mode can just turn it off, can't
they?  Why argue about defaults when they can be so easily changed?