From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Uday S Reddy Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: arrow keys vs. C-f/b/n/p Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:01:08 +0100 Message-ID: <84bpbg9lln.fsf@cs.bham.ac.uk> References: <87d3w2ncqs.fsf_-_@lola.goethe.zz> <87iq5py7xk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83eigclgf0.fsf@gnu.org> <89C16A134A024399A06EFE296DC6916F@us.oracle.com> <83r5kcjkpp.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276365916 14281 80.91.229.12 (12 Jun 2010 18:05:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:05:16 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 12 20:05:15 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONV4z-0007oZ-GP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:05:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57740 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONV4y-0002Dx-Ds for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:05:12 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37654 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONV1G-0007WA-CX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:01:23 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONV1E-0000Em-Cs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:01:21 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:53561) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONV1E-0000EL-0k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:01:20 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONV1B-0006FT-73 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:01:17 +0200 Original-Received: from cpc10-harb6-0-0-cust112.perr.cable.virginmedia.com ([92.232.137.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:01:17 +0200 Original-Received: from u.s.reddy by cpc10-harb6-0-0-cust112.perr.cable.virginmedia.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:01:17 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ connect(): No such file or directory Original-Lines: 35 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc10-harb6-0-0-cust112.perr.cable.virginmedia.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fyaFPlO2TB9gpyM80/1dlNxw07o= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:125830 Archived-At: "Drew Adams" 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