[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: line-move-visual
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: line-move-visual |
Date: |
Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:12:55 -0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
> The thinking behind the line-move-visual decision went something like
> this. If C-n moves by logical lines then the new users would be
> confused. If it moves by visual lines then the experienced users would
> be bothered. But we have a flag whereby experienced users can revert to
> the old behavior. The new users won't know enough to set a flag. So,
> let us go with the default that helps out the new users. See this
> thread for example:
Choosing defaults is very difficult indeed. You can never please
everyone. In this specific case, I'm the main guy to blame: I wrote the
original patch for line-move-visual (oddly enough, since it touches
parts of the code I still am not at all familiar with), mostly because
it seemed it would be important for proper support of word-wrap (which
I didn't care for much, but many users cared about it).
After writing the patch, I tried it out, mostly for debugging purposes,
and much to my surprise I discovered that I actually liked it.
Yes, it occasionally doesn't do what I want, but in practice, it does
what I want more often than the previous case:
- when no line wraps, it either makes no difference, or it works
slightly better because it correctly accounts for
variable-pitch fonts.
- when lines are long (typically the "single-line paragraph" text coming
from people who either use word-wrap or longlines-mode or an editor
that behaves similarly, but can also happen in many other cases like
binary files, or mechanically-generated files), the new behavior is
much better (how did you move to "that spot I see about 10
visual-lines down from point" in a single logical line in
previous Emacsen?).
- when the buffer mostly fits without wrapping, except for a few
exceptions, then yes, the new behavior is less good for those
wrapped-lines. In my particular case, such lines are usually (very
minor) bugs anyway, so it's not that important, but I understand that
some people get annoyed. And of course, if you use C-100 C-n instead
of M-g M-g 100 RET to move to the line 100 (I personally use C-s 100
instead ;-), you'll be disappointed, and if you use keyboard macros
you'll also be disappointed.
Depending on your particular circumstances, the second case will only
rarely happen whereas the third will be very common, so you'll be
really annoyed. Sorry about that. Please (setq line-move-visual nil)
in your .emacs and/or try to come up with some idea how we could keep
the advantages in cases 1 and 2 without suffering in case 3.
Stefan
- Re: line-move-visual, (continued)
- Re: line-move-visual, Joost Kremers, 2010/12/08
- Message not available
- Re: line-move-visual, Tassilo Horn, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Uday S Reddy, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Helmut Eller, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Stefan Monnier, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Tim X, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Andreas Politz, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Uday S Reddy, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: line-move-visual, Uday S Reddy, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Stefan Monnier, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, despen, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Tassilo Horn, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Uday S Reddy, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Evans Winner, 2010/12/09
- Message not available
- Re: HOWTO: Cowtow to old farts, Xah Lee, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Mark Crispin, 2010/12/09
- Re: line-move-visual, Uday S Reddy, 2010/12/08
- Re: line-move-visual, Mark Crispin, 2010/12/09