From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lennart Borgman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: arrow keys vs. C-f/b/n/p Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:34:35 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87d3w2ncqs.fsf_-_@lola.goethe.zz> <87iq5py7xk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83fx0slhxn.fsf@gnu.org> <83pqzwjkn9.fsf@gnu.org> <83mxv0je2b.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276371313 29406 80.91.229.12 (12 Jun 2010 19:35:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 12 21:35:11 2010 connect(): No such file or directory 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONWTy-0007SF-Gn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 21:35:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44332 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONWTx-0001de-RT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:35:05 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52375 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONWTp-0001ci-CI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:34:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONWTo-0004vV-16 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:34:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-gw0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]:44706) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONWTn-0004vO-Tx; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:34:55 -0400 Original-Received: by gwaa18 with SMTP id a18so1341571gwa.0 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=r+/nRYufZsztbdTQuAuDvSPwNpaiZwOFr779z/nfIxc=; b=Yj9hjlhRfySDX80PbkosmbKA7DP2RNKECJ0Gxfkd6nYWUwJnahL09PVK8bzyCfQ63g xJWOQ4dI0yC6HuwFN93UJxDWEC7Lrx0xoBD+nffvCyrj7B/pzMnxMu4GLuC1njZuptzH RL8nV8GOKARkm9RLIDL2zuhuJeOsH2CcNqv68= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=amcLPKr8Y+zDuSfLXoiRC62cZZdLCRy1G5ljed1PbnPHmIV7+L91MiuznMBRb5Ew9H IF5dBIWXlk8WW4tQdUx6HF4wVxmwRnbLVoY7WOc6R2aLm9bp5BYyoNTAree6ObprT9Uu 4OD3IdWkEKgG0SHtTrCq4nTuqCdTfN0kGFZ+c= Original-Received: by 10.101.132.14 with SMTP id j14mr3022679ann.143.1276371295100; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.100.154.15 with HTTP; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:34:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:125839 Archived-At: On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Lennart Borgman wrote: > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> From: Lennart Borgman >>> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:18:18 +0200 >>> Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, dak@gnu.org, cloos@jhcloos.com, emacs-devel@= gnu.org >>> >>> I think the default should be that cursor keys (and keys like page >>> up/down) should move visually. >> >> You are talking as a typical L2R user, as in that case visual and >> logical order are identical. > > > I do not think visual motion actually has anything to do with that. > > >> For users of R2L scripts, what you suggest is a disaster. =C2=A0If curso= r >> motion is visual by default, one cannot even mark text by holding >> Shift and moving point with the arrow keys. > > > I see no reason for this. The arrow keys will with visual motion move > just as they do if all the text where just L2R. So the visual part > will work as before (on the user side, implementation may have to > change). > > Converting the visual region you visually see on the screen to a > logical range is a bit difficult, but not impossible. > > The difficulty is of course to decide what the range on the screen > will be if the end points of the visual region happen to disagree > about the direction. (If there are more difficulties then I am unaware > of them at the moment.) > > The answer to this is as far as I can see that the visual region in > this case no longer internally corresponds to a single range, but to > two noncontinuous ranges in the buffer. If I am correct on this, is > not this then a difficulty that must be handled to finish the bidi > support? I just tested in etc/HELLO to see how you have handled this. You took another route than I expected and I think it makes sense. When selecting a region with the two end points in parts with different directions you instead split the visual region on screen. (If anyone wonders just test in etc/HELLO.) This is a nice way out of the problems implementing what I suggested above. And I can see it makes sense too. However it has nothing at all to do with the visual movements when using the arrow keys. That movement can (and in my opinion should) still be visual. >> And that's just the tip >> of the iceberg. =C2=A0Without logical-order motion keys, Emacs (and ever= y >> other editor of similar sophistication) is much less useful. > > I think you are referring to the difficulty I suggested above. If not, > what more problems do you see? >