line-move-visual
in [Lisp]
|
From: David Kastrup on 15 Jun 2010 05:30 Uday S Reddy <uDOTsDOTreddy(a)cs.bham.ac.uk> writes: > The question is really whether it should have been made the default. > > Every time I narrowed down to that issue in this thread, the > participants have fallen silent (first Xah Lee then Tim Cross, Alan > Mackenzie and Stefan himself). I guess there is no good answer to it. There is no simple answer. And there is no point in working on the aspects of a complex answer where it is not relevant. The relevant place is the developer list. > There is no need for us to beat a dead horse. If the developers > accept that it is a bad idea to introduce backward-incompatible > changes for flimsy reasons, Emacs will be a more useful system for all > of us than it currently is. That's beating a dead horse, and an imaginary one as well. > Fortunately, nothing major is going to fall apart as a result of > next-line' changing its meaning. But I hope that we can arrest this > trend right here so that we don't have to put up with more pain in > future. You are not going to stop development of Emacs single-handedly, and you will not be "arresting" any trend without working with developers when the design decisions are being discussed and made. Venting may be fun, but it will not change things. -- David Kastrup
From: Stefan Monnier on 15 Jun 2010 09:45 > Every time I narrowed down to that issue in this thread, the participants > have fallen silent (first Xah Lee then Tim Cross, Alan Mackenzie and Stefan > himself). I guess there is no good answer to it. I did give you the answer: I tried it and found to my surprise that I liked it, so I suggested it and people said "no way", then they tried it and some people hated it, while others really liked it. So in the end it was a judgment call, and I decided that the added convenience of being able to deal with very-long-lines without having to change mode was more important. I.e. I decided that case 3 (in my earlier long post about it) was less common and less important. Stefan
From: David Kastrup on 15 Jun 2010 09:57 Stefan Monnier <monnier(a)iro.umontreal.ca> writes: >> Every time I narrowed down to that issue in this thread, the participants >> have fallen silent (first Xah Lee then Tim Cross, Alan Mackenzie and Stefan >> himself). I guess there is no good answer to it. > > I did give you the answer: I tried it and found to my surprise that I > liked it, so I suggested it and people said "no way", then they tried > it and some people hated it, while others really liked it. > > So in the end it was a judgment call, and I decided that the added > convenience of being able to deal with very-long-lines without having > to change mode was more important. I.e. I decided that case 3 (in my > earlier long post about it) was less common and less important. I should think that changing to logical mode when recording and replaying macros would be an improvement. I can't imagine anybody wanting visual mode in that case. There is already one such change: vertical movement does not use vscroll in order to go smoothly through vertical material when macro recording or playback is active. -- David Kastrup
From: J. on 15 Jun 2010 12:31 Another easier way is to search for a word in the point of the line you want to go, and search for it with C-s word >> And it was dashed near impossible to move easily to the middle of >> long, long lines. > > C-u <some number> right-arrow >
From: Alan Mackenzie on 15 Jun 2010 12:51
In comp.emacs Uday S Reddy <uDOTsDOTreddy(a)cs.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On 6/15/2010 7:54 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > But I feel this discussion is tangential. Most of us accept that > visual line movement is a /good/ idea and we find it useful in lots of > contexts. We are grateful for Stefan & co for thinking of it and > implementing it. > The question is really whether it should have been made the default. Yes. That is a very difficult question. Most contentious issues discussed on the developers' list are about changing defaults. This was one of these. > Every time I narrowed down to that issue in this thread, the > participants have fallen silent (first Xah Lee then Tim Cross, Alan > Mackenzie and Stefan himself). I guess there is no good answer to it. Ooh, talk about trolling! ;-) I have "fallen silent" because I've nothing much fresh to say. > There is no need for us to beat a dead horse. If the developers accept > that it is a bad idea to introduce backward-incompatible changes for > flimsy reasons, Emacs will be a more useful system for all of us than > it currently is. Normally I'd find myself arguing strongly in the camp of the "traditionalists" when fighting over a change in defaults. For this particular change, I'm ambivalent. The hassle with directly editing long lines is, I believe, more painful than that of navigating keyboard macros through them. Somebody had to decide this issue, and that somebody was Stefan. I think, on balance, he made the right choice. I wouldn't have been complaining if he had decided the opposite. > Fortunately, nothing major is going to fall apart as a result of > `next-line' changing its meaning. But I hope that we can arrest this > trend right here so that we don't have to put up with more pain in > future. "Trend"? You are getting polemic! Emacs will continue to evolve steadily, and some of the changes will cause you minor pain, as they will me. You're surely used to tweaking your .emacs on every major release, so what's new? > Cheers, > Uday -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). |