From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: please make line-move-visual nil Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:57:56 -0700 Message-ID: <97210B5F5DE142E68F7936D61F8D0C5A@us.oracle.com> References: <5f0ff9220906010736paad9321td86fd52326ebe722@mail.gmail.com> <87oct7sur8.fsf@cyd.mit.edu> <31703F2EAE7D4CAF8E671B0C18916D01@us.oracle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1243900696 7310 80.91.229.12 (1 Jun 2009 23:58:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:58:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 3438@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, "'T.V. Raman'" , 'Chong Yidong' , "'Andrew W. Nosenko'" , emacs-devel@gnu.org, 'ishikawa' , ams@gnu.org, 'Stefan Monnier' , stephen@xemacs.org, eliz@gnu.org To: "'Lennart Borgman'" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 02 01:58:11 2009 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 1MBHOM-0006oh-F5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:58:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45532 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MBHOM-00076V-1e for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:58:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MBHOG-00071Q-12 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:58:04 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MBHOB-0006p1-BT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:58:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33703 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MBHOB-0006oj-5j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:57:59 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet11.oracle.com ([148.87.113.123]:51773 helo=rgminet11.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MBHO7-0003W6-DS; Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:57:55 -0400 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com (acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227]) by rgminet11.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n51NwRVO017842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:58:28 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt004.oracle.com (abhmt004.oracle.com [141.146.116.13]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.3.1/Switch-3.3.1) with ESMTP id n51NwZ8g028749; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:58:36 GMT Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.65.100) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:57:38 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Thread-Index: AcnjDpXbSa68VLsaQiiVq8ngVuANowAAZfdw X-Source-IP: abhmt004.oracle.com [141.146.116.13] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A010205.4A246AF4.00CA:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) 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:111276 Archived-At: > > The distinction I made is between buffers that are mostly > > free-form text, where newlines are typically not > > intentionally positioned by the user or by Emacs, and > > the other buffers, where they are. > > Is not that a difficult distinction here? (In a word processor it > would be different.) Exactly how do you do the distinction - as simple > as possible, because if it is useful it must be easy to understand? > > One point I mentioned before is that code might look scrambled, but > maybe that point could be cured some way? (If it really have to be > cured ...) The exact decision for any given mode is not the issue. Please don't make the perfect into the enemy of the good. Adjustments can always be made later, based on user feedback wrt particular modes. The important thing is to decide that non-nil `line-move-visual' should be reserved, by default, for buffers that mostly have free-form text. That includes text-mode, mail message buffers, and the like. Don't search for the gray areas as a means to ignore or avoid a useful general distinction. Info is such a gray area. Should Info eventually become unformatted? Sure, maybe, because most of it is just text. Things can evolve. But today, Info's visual lines end with newlines. It has menus and headers that end in newlines. It has code samples. But yes, most of it is just text, for which line endings are, a priori, meaningless. I wouldn't argue much either way, for Info. Another gray area is *Help*, for similar reasons. But even if we disagree about how to treat Info or *Help* today, that's not the point. To "get" the distinction, look at the extremes, not the middle: Buffer List vs a text paragraph like this one. Think 
 in HTML vs 
 (no, it's not
exactly the same thing, but that might help you see the distinction).

Is there a gradient from hot to cold? Of course. But not all meals are best hot,
nor all best cold. You like to eat fried chicken cold, and I like it hot. So
what? Does that mean we must pick one, hot or cold, to apply to all food?

There's individual preference, sure, and users can define buffer-local variables
as they see fit individually. But if we're serving meals for the group then we
need to decide, based on some general rules of thumb. Salad is by default cold;
soup is by default hot.