From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Leo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: visual-line-mode and line wrapping Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 21:27:20 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87typxp055.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274735351 7888 80.91.229.12 (24 May 2010 21:09:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 21:09:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lennart Borgman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 24 23:09:10 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 1OGet8-0001k2-G2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 May 2010 23:09:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39039 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGet1-0002Iq-SM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 May 2010 17:08:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50654 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OGeFH-0001Mx-KQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 May 2010 16:27:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGeF9-00026M-Bb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 May 2010 16:27:31 -0400 Original-Received: from ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.130]:40302) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OGeF8-00025z-TS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 May 2010 16:27:23 -0400 X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Original-Received: from smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk ([193.60.95.72]:34237) by ppsw-30.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.156]:587) with esmtpsa (LOGIN:sl392) (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) id 1OGeF6-0002mG-CZ (Exim 4.70) (return-path ); Mon, 24 May 2010 21:27:20 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Lennart Borgman's message of "Mon, 24 May 2010 21:58:08 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:125211 Archived-At: On 2010-05-24 20:58 +0100, Lennart Borgman wrote: > I think there are some small functional differences: > > - Using my implementation (i.e. setting margins) puts the fringes next > to the text. I think that is more useful but maybe someone else does > not. I hardly pay attention to fringes because I also run emacs in a terminal where no fringes present. > - Just wrapping would leave the fringes further away. This is consistent. > - Also if a wrap margin was implemented that would have to be changed > dynamically according to window width. (Natural, of course.) I don't know how much c-code would be required if we were to offer a 'maximum-visual-line-width' option here. The reality is there are long lines from email clients (Apple Mail for example), documents from other editors that you might need to collaborate with and situations where adding hard new lines (as in fill-paragraph) is not allowed. So we have to deal with them. > However it would be useful to be able to turn of fringes per buffer or window. Setting margin or fringes changes how window splits it is not that transparent. basically you enter a special mode, where window might split horizontally now splits vertically or vice versa. > Leo, to make it easier for myself to stand the fringes I have > implemented something I call better-fringes-mode ( ;-) ). Did you try > that? No but I'd be happy to try it out. Leo