From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Word syntax question Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:29:21 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87mygy0ybq.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87bpxd29ft.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <8763nl1m41.fsf@catnip.gol.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1224649892 3633 80.91.229.12 (22 Oct 2008 04:31:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:31:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: schwab@suse.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 22 06:32:33 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 4.50) id 1KsVOP-0006pX-9A for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:32:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58807 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KsVNJ-0004M0-R7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:31:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KsVLU-0003by-4B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:29:20 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KsVLT-0003be-Cy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:29:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55056 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KsVLT-0003bZ-AM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:29:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout4.012.net.il ([84.95.2.10]:23983) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KsVLR-0001zp-NC; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:29:17 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.98.197]) by i_mtaout4.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K94001NPHV85T80@i_mtaout4.012.net.il>; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:30:45 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <8763nl1m41.fsf@catnip.gol.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 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:104815 Archived-At: > From: Miles Bader > Cc: schwab@suse.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:58:54 +0900 > > > I agree. I think we should introduce a user option to control whether > > it stops on script boundaries or not, because sometimes it makes > > sense, sometimes it doesn't. > > But a global setting seems far too course, and in general, whether it's > "right" or not seems like it depends more on the precise mixture of > scripts rather than a user's personal preferences. Not global, buffer-specific. Whether stopping or not on script boundaries depends on the specific mix of scripts in the buffer. In addition, perhaps each word-move command should have a way of overriding that.