From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Questioning the new behavior of `open-line'. Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:39:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87h9komkty.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87vb98csu1.fsf@red-bean.com> <87k2poba1s.fsf@red-bean.com> <83si4cjnyw.fsf@gnu.org> <87twosp5ke.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87fv0cm64g.fsf@gmx.us> <87si4bsktk.fsf@red-bean.com> <87wptnlbl6.fsf@gmx.us> <87pozfl2ut.fsf@gmx.us> <87d1vfl17p.fsf@gmx.us> <878u63p6sh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87pozfchq6.fsf@red-bean.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1447596784 11946 80.91.229.3 (15 Nov 2015 14:13:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 14:13:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Pierpaolo Bernardi , emacs-devel To: Artur Malabarba Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 15 15:13:03 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 1Zxy3C-0007aG-Sn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 15:13:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42716 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zxy3C-0005A8-Az for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:13:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35379) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxggJ-0005KM-RA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:40:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxggJ-0007Vc-1C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:40:15 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58524) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxggG-0007UI-5o; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:40:12 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44110 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxggF-0006FY-LP; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 14:40:11 -0500 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6F567DF8DA; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 20:39:53 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Artur Malabarba's message of "Sat, 14 Nov 2015 12:34:00 +0000") 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: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:194494 Archived-At: Artur Malabarba writes: > 2015-11-13 6:04 GMT+00:00 Pierpaolo Bernardi : >> The old behaviour is: ctrl-o inserts a newline after the point, >> nothing else is done. > > Ok, thanks for clarifying. Still can I ask for an example usage where > that behaviour is good and the current behaviour is bad. I want to break a line before a line-ending comment (single ;) and change that line-ending comment to a line comment (double ;;) afterwards. If Emacs gets a chance at indenting before I get a chance at editing, it will even make a total mess of the comment line even when it is doing everything "correctly" according to the current look of the line. More often than not, however, I use C-o when I know that Emacs' indenting is going to be terminally wrong anyway. But of course not having the material run away automatically before I get a chance at editing it is also a valid consideration. > I'm not trying to be annoying here. It's just that I want to clearly > list all relevant scenarios when I write the commit message (so that > future hackers will know about them before changing some behaviour). Frankly, I cannot imagine your C-o behavior to be useful at all since C-o is intentionally a dumb command to revert to for incremental editing. You use it either when you don't want automatic indentation, or if you still have material to add on the current line. And if you still have material to add on the current line, it will likely be relevant for indentation, so it's comparatively useless for C-o to indent prematurely. If not, there is still C-M-o bound to split-line rather than C-o bound to open-line. -- David Kastrup