From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: line-number-mode at EOB Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:30:36 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83tw35thxw.fsf@gnu.org> <87tw35cc70.fsf@rosalinde> <83injktb9p.fsf@gnu.org> <87k240xhk6.fsf@rosalinde> <87k236vh7p.fsf_-_@rosalinde> <878tjlc04f.fsf@rosalinde> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1500388651 6666 195.159.176.226 (18 Jul 2017 14:37:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:37:31 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 18 16:37:28 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTcq-0001Qf-LU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:37:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56887 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTcw-00006e-3n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:37:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60453) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTWj-0004Ix-Cw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:31:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTWg-0007nv-QP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:31:05 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=60061 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTWg-0007mO-Kc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:31:02 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dXTWT-0007cx-1w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:30:49 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 16 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:RH/ClepDBL/fTdTsPEpOiSUe/Tw= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:216836 Archived-At: >>> If this change is accepted, then the command `what-line' should probably >>> also be changed to return "EOB" at EOB. (Such a change makes sense even >> This seems rather undesirable (same for the %l change to display EOB >> rather than the line number). > Why (in both cases)? Does it cause some misbehavior or is it otherwise > problematic? Because it gives less information, IMO. I think if we want to make things consistent with the display-line-numbers, then it's display-line-numbers which should be changed to also display the number on the "non-existing" line after a final LF. If that's too difficult, then I prefer to keep it as a wishitem and live with the inconsistency in the mean time. Stefan