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 13:39:11 -0600 Message-ID: <87k2poba1s.fsf@red-bean.com> References: <87vb98csu1.fsf@red-bean.com> <87h9kscqig.fsf@red-bean.com> <83vb98jqwp.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 1447270819 31016 80.91.229.3 (11 Nov 2015 19:40:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 19:40:19 +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 20:40:14 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 1ZwbFb-0001Nf-Ob for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 20:40:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42641 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwbFb-00057F-BL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:40:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41370) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwbEz-00054Z-W5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:39:54 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwbEg-0005JL-6R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:39:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yk0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231]:32788) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZwbEg-0005JF-2T; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:39:14 -0500 Original-Received: by ykdv3 with SMTP id v3so66707167ykd.0; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:39:13 -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=jmq6QuM3rGMhwjfKsfDLStK+Q7cY3V7NFnSiI2cArK8=; b=Y+l44NgM4Q8+dr6m44KXJz/bGYjzG/ObKs0ezsbT7FhDRm4KZRfHfc81m/fi+k0f/1 klDUQF3cFIawtjpJgrAdDbkaIK+x+qaXhur8ZCI4l2Pq0U6H6FjDUdeDsWePozSAVkrC eZEOpt9ysYrGEZ2zH33HFq/IsvssiM5ePFfth+I1qBQ1LYR9o6hgfuty3w8K6JnjSeCR FQz0jtuQWclQIugoBlSZD42V1AHriKqp3ip/uPChZkwO3S9TrdA2+Mbi7u7h5n21mnqi D5fEzd5TweSCsMbOTMLl4kVvB5IDiMJUKrNlwvZRLzMnQtcjI3mz4SsxQdI15ZCpX3jO 8cMA== X-Received: by 10.13.235.16 with SMTP id u16mr11582585ywe.270.1447270753531; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:39:13 -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 p84sm2303403ywc.23.2015.11.11.11.39.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:39:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:13:34 -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::231 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:194125 Archived-At: John Wiegley writes: > Eli Zaretskii writes: >> People who don't like electric-indent-mode can just turn it off, can't they? >> Why argue about defaults when they can be so easily changed? > >This is more about people who want to use electric-indent-mode, but don't want >it changing previous defaults in a way that doesn't seem to be related to >electric-indent-mode. > >I can imagine a new user experiencing this and having no clue that >electric-indent-mode is the reason: Because it is enabled by default for them >in 25.1 -- they never consciously turned it on to notice the difference in >behavior -- so they wouldn't know it's coming from that source. That's exactly what happened to me, yes. >Why is something like this being enabled by default, again? Or did I misread? >I would expect any kind of automated behavior like this to be opt-in. You didn't misread -- the new behavior is (currently) the default. I'm proposing we revert to the old behavior. Even people who use electric indent all the time would probably be surprised by the new default behavior. And there's no real advantage to this new default, since one can achieve the same effect just by putting point in column 0 before running `open-line'. So Eli, I think what John said is right: this isn't about `electric-indent-mode'. It's about `open-line', and a new behavior of `open-line' that isn't what most users would expect even if they are conscious of & like `electric-indent-mode'. Best regards, -Karl