From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nix Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal to improve the nomenclature of scrolling directions Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:47:53 +0000 Message-ID: <87r4o1ikfa.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> References: <87a9uvv6ng.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87bof9s7cl.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <874nl0ov8g.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <20635.63115.874182.168553@winooski.ccs.neu.edu> <87liecnelf.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <83390k0wgy.fsf@gnu.org> <83sj8jz0rs.fsf@gnu.org> <83txsxykcp.fsf@gnu.org> <509E3607.6070500@gmx.at> <83obj5y94x.fsf@gnu.org> <87390hk7a0.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix> <83lie9y142.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1352558896 4928 80.91.229.3 (10 Nov 2012 14:48:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:48:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dan@haxney.org, rms@gnu.org, eli@barzilay.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rudalics@gmx.at, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, dmoncayo@gmail.com, stephen@xemacs.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 10 15:48:24 2012 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 1TXCMB-0008Fn-Ih for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 15:48:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47633 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXCM2-0007xs-BR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:48:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48312) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXCLy-0007we-2F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:48:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXCLu-0000Ki-W6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:48:10 -0500 Original-Received: from icebox.esperi.org.uk ([81.187.191.129]:33316 helo=mail.esperi.org.uk) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXCLm-0000I2-Gg; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 09:47:58 -0500 Original-Received: from spindle.srvr.nix (nix@spindle.srvr.nix [192.168.14.15]) by mail.esperi.org.uk (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAAElr1Q027205; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:47:53 GMT Emacs: ... it's not just a way of life, it's a text editor! In-Reply-To: <83lie9y142.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:38:21 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-DCC-x.dcc-servers-Metrics: spindle 104; Body=9 Fuz1=9 Fuz2=9 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 81.187.191.129 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:154802 Archived-At: On 10 Nov 2012, Eli Zaretskii told this: >> From: Nix >> Cc: martin rudalics , rms@gnu.org, dan@haxney.org, >> eli@barzilay.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, >> dmoncayo@gmail.com, stephen@xemacs.org >> Emacs: the only text editor known to get indigestion. >> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:48:55 +0000 >> >> > Given that the modification >> > commands don't require moving point, and C-v/M-v won't either (as this >> > is the main justification for the feature we are discussing), what >> > will? >> >> Normally, in the Other Editors, PgUp/PgDn do move point: it's things >> like scrolling using the scroll bars that does not. I'm not sure this is >> so useful in Emacs -- when was the last time you used the scroll bars? >> When was the last time you noticed they existed? I could have had this >> feature on for the last six months and never triggered it once. :) > > So my question above still stands. Well, yes, I was agreeing with you. I'm not quite sure what the point of doing this is anymore. -- NULL && (void)