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: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:17:18 +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> <87wruco5yq.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87wrubfd8p.fsf@rapttech.com.au> <848w6ndwn0.fsf@cs.bham.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291830699 6031 80.91.229.12 (8 Dec 2010 17:51:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:51:39 +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 18:51:33 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 1PQOAu-0006de-VQ for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:51:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39420 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PQOAu-0006oB-En for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:51:32 -0500 Original-Path: usenet.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!news2.euro.net!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!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: 54 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: acws-0068.cs.bham.ac.uk Original-X-Trace: north.jnrs.ja.net 1276183038 21058 147.188.194.56 (10 Jun 2010 15:17:18 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@north.jnrs.ja.net Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:17:18 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) In-Reply-To: Original-Xref: usenet.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:178800 comp.emacs:99974 comp.lang.lisp:288902 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:75734 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier wrote: > Choosing defaults is very difficult indeed. You can never please > everyone. In this specific case, I'm the main guy to blame: I wrote the > original patch for line-move-visual (oddly enough, since it touches > parts of the code I still am not at all familiar with), mostly because > it seemed it would be important for proper support of word-wrap (which > I didn't care for much, but many users cared about it). Isn't word-wrap the ideal solution for dealing with the single-line paragraphs that you mention in the second bullet point below? > > Yes, it occasionally doesn't do what I want, but in practice, it does > what I want more often than the previous case: > - when no line wraps, it either makes no difference, or it works > slightly better because it correctly accounts for > variable-pitch fonts. > - when lines are long (typically the "single-line paragraph" text coming > from people who either use word-wrap or longlines-mode or an editor > that behaves similarly, but can also happen in many other cases like > binary files, or mechanically-generated files), the new behavior is > much better (how did you move to "that spot I see about 10 > visual-lines down from point" in a single logical line in > previous Emacsen?). > - when the buffer mostly fits without wrapping, except for a few > exceptions, then yes, the new behavior is less good for those > wrapped-lines. In my particular case, such lines are usually (very > minor) bugs anyway, so it's not that important, but I understand that > some people get annoyed. And of course, if you use C-100 C-n instead > of M-g M-g 100 RET to move to the line 100 (I personally use C-s 100 > instead ;-), you'll be disappointed, and if you use keyboard macros > you'll also be disappointed. > > Depending on your particular circumstances, the second case will only > rarely happen whereas the third will be very common, so you'll be > really annoyed. Sorry about that. Please (setq line-move-visual nil) > in your .emacs and/or try to come up with some idea how we could keep > the advantages in cases 1 and 2 without suffering in case 3. If line-move-visual is nil by default, the users that care about 1 and 2 can set it to t, can't they? It is the same issue from the other side of the fence. They don't need the default set in a particular way to get their behaviour. Moreover, the people dealing with single-line paragraphs (me being one of them) will normally use visual-line-mode, which does visual line motion anyway. So, they are not affected by the default at all. So, this particular decision doesn't seem to be all that difficult. Cheers, Uday