From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Fogel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Questioning the new behavior of `open-line'. Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:33:03 -0600 Message-ID: <878u64b7k0.fsf@red-bean.com> References: <87vb98csu1.fsf@red-bean.com> <87h9kscqig.fsf@red-bean.com> <83vb98jqwp.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2poba1s.fsf@red-bean.com> <83si4cjnyw.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Karl Fogel NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447273994 20970 80.91.229.3 (11 Nov 2015 20:33:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:33:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 11 21:33:13 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zwc4u-0006Gi-Oi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:33:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42813 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zwc4u-00087J-LQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:33:12 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55154) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zwc4r-00087E-A7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:33:10 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zwc4o-0001vX-4f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:33:09 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yk0-x232.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c07::232]:35835) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zwc4o-0001vT-0I; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:33:06 -0500 Original-Received: by ykba77 with SMTP id a77so68927446ykb.2; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:33:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:reply-to:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=ofpumymwPvnluKDx9HXlgms/FfsxkZ8FkTV4kFbPiac=; b=WOxEar9HHeXdvUWcJtvxO8zZoBhutly6z1QkW7xF3iEQDy4fR0WRaX+ABHRIzx+Gv4 llumKXxXv5t2w7LwB3U6iQte+pc38kV1xATZhSFdU1uU2oyXWORNmyaXsGSRYVNeV9Ul ZoNlAGpY0CiSBsLqyUCcKi0B8lV9HciTrDb2K5nvsptqYntA1JBW5Mn4AjeXul1rrmzB JeqDpNKmqoJEIWdgw8IYPl+Mj7t/cDlXNVyHYfW/giL0WPx3iCLrR/J+gz38/BgcVF0x yChcdOnNAThCGuIwO1QN7HG7mswa16NCBkdjTk4R2tZZJkwyQXLSSFGdAn+BdHoFHtD2 F9Rw== X-Received: by 10.13.231.71 with SMTP id q68mr11905627ywe.311.1447273985677; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:33:05 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from floss (74-92-190-114-Illinois.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.92.190.114]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p202sm12567291ywe.44.2015.11.11.12.33.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:33:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:17:44 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4002:c07::232 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:194136 Archived-At: John Wiegley writes: >Correct. We have several things in play here: > > 1. When electric-indent-mode is off, everything is fine. > > 2. When electric-indent-mode is on, C-o behaves in an unexpected fashion. > > 3. We should fix C-o when electric-indent-mode is on, so its behavior is not > affected by electric-indent-mode. I was only arguing for (3), FWIW. I have no opinion on whether electric-indent-mode should be on or off by default. When it is on, however, I don't think it should affect open-line's behavior anyway. The old open-line behavior is a better way for open-line to behave, and a less surprising behavior, even when electric-indent-mode is on. Was this specific effect on `open-line' even contemplated in the prior discussion about turning on electric-indent-mode by default? I didn't follow that thread, but unless the topic was specifically raised, I don't think that "electric-indent-mode is now the default" equates to "open-line should have this new behavior". Let me put it this way: if electric-indent-mode being *off* were still the default, and someone changed open-line to be sensitive to electric-indent-mode in this way, I'd still raise the same question: should open-line behave this way when electric-indent-mode is on? So electric-indent-mode being on or off *by default* is unrelated to the open-line question. The question is, should open-line behave in this new way when electric-indent-mode is on? (And I think the answer is "no".) > 4. We should disable electric-indent-mode by default. > > Since I wasn't present for the discussion when electric-indent-mode > was enabled by default, I'd like to reopen that discussion with regard > to 25.1. Probably on a separate thread from this one. Neither for nor against, personally, but agree it is a separate thread anyway. Best, -Karl