Re: arrow keys vs. C-f/b/n/p

[Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk>]

"Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> But I think you should also make it clear (clearer) that this
> "logical" order corresponds to buffer position, even if that might
> seem more programmer-oriented. Emacs users sooner or later have an
> understanding of buffer positions, so you might as well anchor the
> notion of "logical" order as being buffer order.

Drew, I am not sure why you think this buffer order is so fundamental.
An Emacs user doesn't see a buffer order.  There is an order in which
text is layed out on the screen.  There is an order in which the
language flows in the text.  These are the things that matter.  How the
characters are stored inside the Emacs buffer is an internal matter.

If an Emacs user graduates to becoming a programmer then he/she will
figure out how things work internally.  But it doesn't seem right to me
that the internal storage should dictate everybody's view of the world.

I notice that Lennart makes the same point later in the thread.

In fact, I began to write a response to you last night.  When I checked
things in the morning, there were comprehensive explanations from Eli,
which I thought settled the issues quite satisfactorily.

There is no harm in the users knowing that the buffer order is the same
as the logical, or reading, order.  But, even if the buffer order
happened to be different, I don't think the design issues would be any
different.

I am quite clear that the users should be given a clear conceptual model
that fits with their experience, not how things are implemented
internally. 

Cheers,
Uday