[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-n and C-a
From: |
Sascha Wilde |
Subject: |
Re: C-n and C-a |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:07:38 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote:
>> The new definitions of C-n and C-p seem to work reasonably
>> conveniently with the very long lines that non-Emacs-users often
>> write. However, it is very counterintuitive that C-a and C-e have not
>> been changed in the same way. They keep surprising me, and I have to
>> work hard to remember not to use them to do the natural thing.
>
>> I think they too should be changed to operate on screen lines;
>> that's a necessary part of the change that was already made.
>
> How about C-k?
I would strongly vote for not changing it:
Most over-long lines I encounter are made of content which really
belongs logical together (generated code, log messages ...)
I expect C-k to kill a logical line and doing otherwise would keep the
risk of leaving artifacts.
cheers
sascha
--
Sascha Wilde
"The primary difference [...] is that the Java program will reliably
and obviously crash, whereas the C program will do something obscure."
-- Java Language Tutorial
- Re: C-n and C-a, (continued)
- Re: C-n and C-a, Juri Linkov, 2009/01/29
- Re: C-n and C-a, Stefan Monnier, 2009/01/29
- Re: C-n and C-a, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/01/30
- Re: C-n and C-a, Juri Linkov, 2009/01/31
- Re: C-n and C-a, Stefan Monnier, 2009/01/31
- Re: C-n and C-a, Chong Yidong, 2009/01/31
Re: C-n and C-a, Richard M Stallman, 2009/01/30
Re: C-n and C-a, Karl Fogel, 2009/01/29
Re: C-n and C-a, Stefan Monnier, 2009/01/29
Re: C-n and C-a, Juri Linkov, 2009/01/29