From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Uday S Reddy Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: line-move-visual Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 10:53:32 +0100 Organization: Janet Usenet Reading Service. Message-ID: References: <87pr07qjio.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> <878w6vq7ew.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> <871vcmhq79.fsf@wivenhoe.ul.ie> <580d5f23-e251-483f-9752-7e77b1ca2fb7@40g2000pry.googlegroups.com> <2a7dc148-e2cc-4681-9d8c-ccd1140aa6d7@j36g2000prj.googlegroups.com> <089883ee-0a63-4cb4-a0ec-d2fe4e71cc03@y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291828230 25512 80.91.229.12 (8 Dec 2010 17:10:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:10:30 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 08 18:10:25 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@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 1PQNX7-0008KJ-JP for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:10:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39463 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQNX6-0001NU-NF for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:10:24 -0500 Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!newsfeed.esat.net!feeder.news.heanet.ie!feed4.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!times.reader.netnews.ja.net!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help,comp.emacs,comp.lang.lisp Original-Lines: 40 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: gromit.cs.bham.ac.uk Original-X-Trace: north.jnrs.ja.net 1275814417 2226 147.188.193.16 (6 Jun 2010 08:53:37 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@north.jnrs.ja.net Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 08:53:37 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 In-Reply-To: <089883ee-0a63-4cb4-a0ec-d2fe4e71cc03@y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com> Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:178679 comp.emacs:99923 comp.lang.lisp:288746 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:75671 Archived-At: On 6/5/2010 11:28 PM, Xah Lee wrote: > I respect your recognized contribution to humanity as a computer > programer. However, not sure if you are aware, that i've argued with > well known emacs and lisp old timers for the past 10 years Thank God that some civility has returned to this thread! > to argue, first let's be precise what we are arguing about. Here's few > points: > > • emacs 23's introduction of line-move-visual feature is good (or > bad). > > • emacs 23's default of line-move-visual t good (or bad) > > • the very concep of move by screen line is good (or bad). No, I don't think that these are the questions that this debate is about. (When we start debating what the debate is about, we should realize that we are hopelessly knotted up in circles!) Emacs 23 has a *visual line mode* and a *logical line mode* (the default mode that you have whenever the visual-line-mode is /not/ turned on). Everybody understands and expects that C-n moves by visual line in the visual line mode. The question is, do you want it to move by visual line or logical line in the *logical line mode*? Let me repeat: do you want C-n to move by visual line or logical in the *logical line mode*? In the megabytes of debate that has gone on on this issue, I haven't seen a single point mentioned as to why it should move by visual line in the logical line mode. Yet, that is the default in Emacs 23! Worse, it *changes* the semantics of C-n which as, Mark Crispin points out, has been here the 70's. So, there are three things that an old-timer is annoyed about: 1. Change of established semantics. 2. Inconsistency. 3. Pointlessness. Coupled with these real technical issues, there are the attitudinal problems of holier-than-thou, smarter-than-thou and modern-than-thou and what have you. In another part of this thread, we have also seen the astonishing idea that the developers don't have to care about what the users want/need. If that is the attitude that open source developers take, then I will be the first to give up open source! Cheers, Uday