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: recenter-top-bottom Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:33:05 -0800 Message-ID: References: <8764082h9q.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> 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 1194856643 30314 80.91.229.12 (12 Nov 2007 08:37:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:37:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Bastien" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 12 09:37:28 2007 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 1IrUnN-000130-RT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:37:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IrUnB-0001go-LH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:37:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IrUkt-0000d6-Py for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:34:51 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IrUks-0000cK-1P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:34:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IrUkr-0000c1-In for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:34:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IrUkr-0003NL-8V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:34:49 -0500 Original-Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IrUkq-0005ev-8H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:34:48 -0500 Original-Received: from rgmgw2.us.oracle.com (rgmgw2.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.111]) by agminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id lAC8Yi79032500; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:34:44 -0600 Original-Received: from acsmt351.oracle.com (acsmt351.oracle.com [141.146.40.151]) by rgmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id lAC62cVf023632; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:34:39 -0700 Original-Received: from dhcp-amer-whq-csvpn-gw3-141-144-80-223.vpn.oracle.com by acsmt351.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3359633001194856373; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:32:53 -0800 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <8764082h9q.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-kernel: by mx20.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:83032 Archived-At: > But moving the point from the center to the top when the point is *at* > the center *and* when the last command was not 'recenter-top-bottom is > awkward. Because it is very likely that I wasn't aware the point was > already at the center and that I just wanted to move it to the center. It's unclear to me why someone wants to put the window point exactly at the center. I look at this as trying to position a section of text, and point, within a general window area, for convenience, visibility etc. - similar to scrolling. So, for me, the window point being near the middle or at the middle is the same goal. Why is it important for you to move the window point precisely to the center (from nearby)? (You can still do that, but `C-u C-l' is not as handy, if you want such precision often.) I'm not trying to persuade you; I just don't see the use case. I can understand why it might be important sometimes to have the window point exactly at the window top or bottom, but I can't imagine why it is often important to move it exactly to the middle from nearby. > You can call this "refreshing", but 80% of the times I'm really trying > to recenter (not refresh) when the point is already at the center. What does that mean - recenter when the window point is already at the center? You mean near the center, don't you? > Relying on people's ability to *know* that the point is at the center to > move it without surprise sounds a bit risky to me. You don't have to know that the window point is at the center. You just need to know whether it is nearer the center than the top or bottom. If you want the window point mainly in the center area, and it is already there, then do nothing. If it is not already there, then hit `C-l' once or twice. Same with the other two areas: if the window point is in the area you want (top or bottom), then do nothing; else hit `C-l' once or twice. > > You could of course still do the same thing, but you would need to hit > > `C-l' three times, not one. If you make such minor display adjustments > > with `C-l' frequently, then, yes, this is not optimal for you. > > If point is at the center and the last command was 'recenter-top-bottom > then I think it's ok to move the point to the top. But maybe the first > call should reach the center, even if it's already at the center. I don't see that. If that were the behavior, I'm sure someone would complain that s?he had to hit `C-l' twice just to get the window point to move away from the central area. I think it's better to leave the behavior as defined, and let people choose whether they want that or plain `recenter' for `C-l'. > But sure, I could also use `recenter' instead. It sounds like that is what you prefer. I have no idea what most people prefer - I was guessing that they would prefer what I proposed, but life can be full of surprises. > > FWIW - I find remarkable the language some people are using. I'm > > impressed that anyone finds such a proposal "disturbing" or "an > > irritation" (and screams "PLEASE DON'T DO THIS!!!!" for setting > > `last-command' to an undefined command name). I'm truly amazed that > > this is so critical. > > I guess this is because C-l is a fundamuntal command. Every little > change to it strikes the imagination quite easily. Hence people are > shouting, crying, etc. I suppose it's mainly a question of habit - I was wondering if there wasn't perhaps more than that involved here. But even so, it's not as if the good ol' `recenter' behavior were being removed altogether. The only question is about the default behavior - what most people find most helpful. > but everyone's trying to be helpful here, no? Anyway, I hope I was. Sure. Anyway, as I said, I don't have a preference for Emacs about this. I use this as a personal preference, and I don't care whether it becomes the default behavior or is even added to Emacs as an option. I am curious about the range of opinion though.