Ping!
> Cc: 73863@debbugs.gnu.org, romain.ouabdelkader@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 14:22:24 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
>
> > From: João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 10:28:50 +0100
> > Cc: Romain Ouabdelkader <romain.ouabdelkader@gmail.com>, 73863@debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> > Flymake queries should be directed to Spencer Baugh
>
> Sorry, I keep forgetting that.
>
> > But if this fixes the user's problem and doesn't hurt anyone who does
> > have wide enough windows and on top of that sufficient testing is done,
> > I don't object to this solution. I don't know what that problem is. Does
> > the user want their cursor to show at the end of the intangible overlay?
> > If so, that's odd: I designed this feature to be as little intrusive as possible
> > i.e. so that turning it on has no other effect than some text appearing
> > at the end of line -- and only at the end of line. If there is little space, I
> > would say the right thing to do is to truncate, not wrap to the next line
>
> When the diagnostic overlay wraps to the next screen line, it is
> strange to see the cursor at the beginning of the diagnostic after
> C-n, since users generally expect C-n to move to the next screen line.
>
> But if we decide that the current behavior is more reasonable, and
> this is just a matter of users getting used to it, I don't mind
> leaving the current behavior alone.
>
> > To try and answer your question, I don't think it is used by other Flymake
> > parts (the function name hints at it: flymake--eol- means "end of line").
> > However, I advise to give it testing (with multiple diagnostics on one
> > line, for example). I remember trying many variations on these things
> > and each had its drawbacks. But possibly (probably?) I didn't test
> > this one. Anyway, do test this out with other flymake eol users and
> > consider the impact to users with wide enough windows: if there's no
> > impact I don't see why this wouldn't be acceptable. But that is for
> > Spencer or you to decide.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Spencer, what say you?
>
>
>
>