[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch

From: Ken Manheimer
Subject: Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:17:08 -0400

we agree on every behavior except for one, and that disagreement may
be due to a misunderstanding.

On 9/24/06, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
      | 1. With the cursor adjacent to the right of any bar,
       |   if you move forwards a line (^N), the cursor slips to column 0.
        | 2. Moving backwards (^P) with the cursor in the same place, however,
         |   doesn't have this problem - it sticks near the boundary.

#1 is clearly a bug.  C-n should be symmetrical with C-p.

        | 3. Moving forwards or backwards with the cursor to the right of the
       |     boundary *not* adjacent does regular sticky-column behavior.

That is correct.

      | 4. Forwards with the cursor on or to the bar's left leaves it in column 

That is a bug.  It should be sticky except staying to the left of the bar.

     | 5. Backwards in the same situation moves it to the right of the bar.

That is correct behavior.

that is not the behavior i need, and don't see why it is desirable -
particularly since it's the opposite of the behavior you agreed to
when advancing - ie, #4, just above.

by #5, i am saying that when the cursor is between the left margin and
the bar (so the cursor is within the characters with the 'field
'boundary text property), moving back a line moves the cursor to the
*right* side of the bar, outside of the 'field 'boundary characters.
i don't want the system moving the cursor out of the field type i
started from.  you agreed that it shouldn't do so when moving forwards
(#4), do you really mean that it should do so when moving backwards?

    6. ^A from anywhere beyond the immediate right of the boundary moves to
       the immediate right, and subsequently advances to the far left.

That is correct behavior.

So it looks like C-p works but C-n doesn't.

C-p mostly works, except for #5.  it may be that #5 is deliberate and
suitable for some situations, but it's "helping" me in a way that's
counterproductive for my purposes.

Yidong, would you like to fix this, then ack?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]