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: arrow keys vs. C-f/b/n/p Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:26:42 -0700 Message-ID: References: <87d3w2ncqs.fsf_-_@lola.goethe.zz><87iq5py7xk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <871vcc4xhf.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <83ljakliqt.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276353276 9060 80.91.229.12 (12 Jun 2010 14:34:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:34:36 +0000 (UTC) To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" , Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 12 16:34:34 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 1ONRmR-0008Mj-Ld for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:34:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55816 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONRm3-0005u0-B9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:33:27 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41906 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONRlZ-0003B7-LW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:33:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONRgC-0003P7-Fx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:27:25 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:30484) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONRgC-0003P1-9M; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:27:24 -0400 Original-Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by rcsinet10.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o5CERMU7013666 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:27:23 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt354.oracle.com (acsmt354.oracle.com [141.146.40.154]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o5C76iVE008098; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:27:21 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt008.oracle.com by acsmt355.oracle.com with ESMTP id 319837881276352798; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:26:38 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/141.144.64.21) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sat, 12 Jun 2010 07:26:37 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <83ljakliqt.fsf@gnu.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 Thread-Index: AcsKDwhJ8+IhLwK9R0isbBifeDPHYAAI9qfg X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-Source-IP: rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090203.4C13994B.0104:SCFMA4539811,ss=1,fgs=0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:125813 Archived-At: Very clear post, which helps me understand. Thank you. > Now please note an important detail: in a L2R paragraph, C-f generally > moves cursor _to_the_right_, even though it could sometimes change > direction and move to the left, when we are traversing R2L text > embedded into a L2R paragraph. Similarly, in a R2L paragraph, C-f > generally moves cursor _to_the_left_. In the important special case, > when L2R paragraphs include only L2R text and R2L paragraphs include > only R2L text, cursor motion with C-f is strictly to the right > resp. to the left. That sounds reasonable. > This is the reason What is the reason? > why the arrow key moves like C-f in a L2R > paragraph, and why the arrow key moves like C-f in a R2L > paragraph. (And similarly with C-b.) FWIW, I don't see a supporting argument for why the arrows should have different behavior from C-f/C-b. > It is so that Emacs behaves as expected Well, there's the reason, but what is it? What is "expected" of the arrow keys, that means they should act differently from C-f/C-b? You made it clear that we are, in all cases, talking only about logical order (which you defined as buffer order, beginning to end). And both arrows and C-f/C-b follow the logical order (a-z, in your example). It is still a question why the paragraph direction should reverse which arrow key moves forward vs backward (in logical order). You might have a good reason for that, but so far I haven't seen it. You've only said that this is "expected" of the arrows. Don't get me wrong - I don't really care. I'm just pointing out that you haven't really given a good reason for this, beyond some hand-waving ("expected"). > in a purely R2L paragraph containing only R2L text. Any > other operation would be confusingly counter-intuitive: the > key would actually move cursor _to_the_left_! How is that different for C-f/C-b? Should one pair be counter-intuitive but not the other? Why? > Again, we are talking _only_ about _logical-order_movement_! Great. Again, thanks for a clear post. It really was helpful. And as I say, I don't really care one way or the other for myself (I'll probably always use L2R text). But it might help if you do give some rationale for why arrows, but not C-f/C-b, should behave "intuitively".