From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Display-based word wrapping Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:14:24 -0400 Message-ID: <874p7hgz5r.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <87k5gen1vn.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87od5qd2x3.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87ej6mxzzp.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87mylab77x.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1214417976 11876 80.91.229.12 (25 Jun 2008 18:19:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:19:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 25 20:20:21 2008 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 4.50) id 1KBZbK-0003g3-Ti for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:20:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40630 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KBZaU-0001Ed-RR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KBZaP-0001EX-HD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:17 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KBZaM-0001E0-14 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36433 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KBZaL-0001Dp-Mj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:13 -0400 Original-Received: from cyd.mit.edu ([18.115.2.24]:33741) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KBZaL-0005E9-EC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:19:13 -0400 Original-Received: by cyd.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B01D44E473; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:14:24 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:48:27 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:99940 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> I don't see much of a problem with it. That's what >>> define-obsolete-variable-alias is for, isn't it? > >> Leaving these calls in place would generate plenty of byte-compiler >> warnings, unless we do defvaralias instead of >> define-obsolete-variable-alias. Anyway, isn't it a general policy to >> change the code in Emacs to use non-obsolete names? > > Of course, but luckily we have a tool (Emacs) that can help us do the > search&replace for those cases that occur within Emacs's own files. > Still doesn't seem like a major problem. > > Of course, we could also decide not to rename the variable. All I'm > after is to keep a single (3-state) variable rather than a pair of > boolean vars to choose between the 3 alternative ways to deal with long > lines. What I'm questioning is whether it's truly a 3-state situation. From the point of view of the redisplay engine, yes, it's just three different ways of wrapping. But from the point of view of the Lisp interface, it may be more convenient to regard word-wrap and char-wrap are two different styles of line continuation, and to draw an additional distinction between line continuation and line truncation. Because then the semantic role of truncate-partial-width-windows and toggle-truncate-lines would be unchanged: if lines are not truncated, they are continued, and the word-wrap variable determines how that continuation occurs.