From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard M Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "Pager" page-up and -down, why not merge? Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:36:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: <5896C8E2-D065-4B8E-927F-8784062241EF@interstitiality.net> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1212678664 20236 80.91.229.12 (5 Jun 2008 15:11:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: arobert@interstitiality.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Juanma Barranquero" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 05 17:11:40 2008 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 1K4H7r-0003TR-9v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:11:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35580 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K4H74-0006vm-LB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:10:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K4H6v-0006rb-0L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:10:41 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K4H6r-0006n7-E0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:10:38 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40033 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K4H6r-0006ml-33 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:10:37 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:49581) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K4H6q-00061v-Jc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:10:36 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1K4Ehn-0007x5-JU; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:36:35 -0400 In-reply-to: (lekktu@gmail.com) 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:98463 Archived-At: > That in itself is a good thing, but ISTR that the simple > implementations of this had bad effects in other cases. I'haven't noticed any bad effect (though that means that it is related to things I don't use, not that the effects do not exist, of course). Care to elaborate which those bad effects are? I don't remember -- it was something like ten years ago that I looked at the issue. It may have involved cases where scrolling hits the begining or end of the buffer and then you scroll in the opposite direction. Or it may have involved cases where you do some editing then scroll back to where you were. I think that all simple approaches will cause anomalies, but they will be different depending on which simple approach. You may not see them in usual usage, but they will be there. You need to think about the cases where there may be anomalies -- that you do not encounter them gives no evidence.