From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Uday S Reddy Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: arrow keys vs. C-f/b/n/p Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:34:46 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87d3w2ncqs.fsf_-_@lola.goethe.zz><87iq5py7xk.fsf@stupidchicken.com> 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 1276284912 28899 80.91.229.12 (11 Jun 2010 19:35:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:35:12 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 11 21:35:10 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 1ONA0S-0006Yl-2M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:35:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39909 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONA0R-0008Ru-BU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:35:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52506 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ONA0L-0008Qa-OR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:35:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONA0K-0000r4-Qt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:35:01 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:42241) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONA0K-0000qd-GS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:35:00 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ONA0F-0006Pm-JH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:34:55 +0200 Original-Received: from acws-0068.cs.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.194.56]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:34:55 +0200 Original-Received: from u.s.reddy by acws-0068.cs.bham.ac.uk with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:34:55 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ connect(): No such file or directory Original-Lines: 35 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: acws-0068.cs.bham.ac.uk User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) In-Reply-To: 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:125760 Archived-At: Drew Adams wrote: >> It's actually not really decoupled. >> It just switches between "C-f = right and C-b = left" and >> "C-f = left and C-b = right" based on the paragraph's direction. >> Which seems eminently meaningful since the associating between >> "forward" and "right" is just based on our usual convention of >> writing L2R. > > On the surface this seems wrong and overly complicated (to me). "Eminently > meaningful" it no doubt is, but it seems somehow bass ackwards. ;-) It seems > wrong for `right' to mean "left". No, Stefan is not saying 'right' should mean "left"! He is saying that 'right' moves right, 'left' moves left, 'C-f' moves forward in the text direction and 'C-b' moves backward in the text direction. Sometimes the two sets of keys match up one way, and sometimes the other way. Eminently meaningful indeed! Whether you want to call this "coupled" or "decoupled" is a matter of terminology. > But is it really important that "forward" in a command name move toward the left > in R2L? Why should "forward" necessarily mean "from text beginning toward text > end" rather than just "toward the right"? What is at stake here? Only an R2L user can answer that (which I am not). However, consistency matters. If "forward" doesn't really mean forward in the text, I think you will end up with nonsense in the end, such as "beginning of sentence" moving to the end of sentence. That is why I came up with a bunch of questions the other day, which seem all interlinked. Cheers, Uday