Re: visual-line-mode

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> OK, do I understand you right? Basic movement commands (when
>>> interactive) on by default as per Stefan's method (which I agree is
>>> better given the new feature of vertical-motion), and C-a/C-e/C-k in
>>> a minor mode as per my code.
>
>> That doesn't make much sense -- _at least_ C-a/C-e need to act
>> consistently with C-n/C-p.  It's mind-boggling confusing when they
>> don't.
>
>> Other commands, I dunno, though I think C-k should as well (Stefan
>> apparently doesn't though).
>
> I'm mostly using it on files with few line wrapping, so in this
> context, visual-line movement for C-p and C-n is not harmful in my
> experience, but for things like C-a, C-e, and C-k I find it annoying.
> E.g. I expect C-a C-k to kill the whole code line, not just the part
> that happens to fit within my window's width.
>
> Also C-k is odd when operating on a visual line: if the line is
> wrapped, then after C-k you'd end up still having text after point,
> whereas I usually expect that after C-k point is at EOL.
>
> Maybe it's just me.

I think it depends on what you use it for.  If you are editing code,
there is usually little overflow, and the overflow you have ends at an
easily recognizable place, and the hard newlines carry meaning.

If you are editing a novel where every paragraph is written without
newlines, wrapping just being done to accommodate the editing window
(but irrelevant for the result), you want to be able to edit and
navigate with finer grained units than whole paragraphs.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum