[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: invisible

From: Stephen Berman
Subject: Re: invisible
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:31:01 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:59:41 +0100 martin rudalics <address@hidden> wrote:

>> I cannot see a difference with forward-line.  I did this:
> ...
>> 5. In buffer a with point at (point-max), repeatedly typing C-p goes
>> like this, with `^' marking successive positions of the cursor:
>> line1line2line3line4line5line6
>> ^    ^         ^         ^
>> line7
>> ^
>> 6. In buffer b with point at (point-max), repeatedly typing C-p goes
>> like this:
>> line1line2line3line4line5line6
>> ^    ^   ^     ^    ^    ^
>> line7
>> ^
>> 7. In both buffer a and buffer b with point at (point-max), repeatedly
>> typing 'M-: (forward-line -1)' goes like in 6:
>> line1line2line3line4line5line6
>> ^    ^         ^         ^
>> line7
>> ^
> I don't understand: You say it "goes like in 6" but according to your
> "^" indicators you skip line5 and line3 in "7.".  Anyway, my Emacs has
> for (forward-line -1) the behavior you sketched for cases 5 and 6: line
> 5 and line3 are skipped when the rear-nonsticky property is not set.

Oh, sorry, that was a copy and paste error: the cursor indicators in 7
should be the same as in 6.

>> The only difference I see is in buffer a when the cursor is at the end
>> of line 7 (actually, anywhere but at the beginning), then typing C-p
>> repeatedly does not skip any lines.  This is regardless of the setting
>> of track-eol.
> Please experiment with the attached text file.  You probably need a
> visible line before and/or after the lines with the invisible endings.
> And it's easier to move the cursor to the end of a line before moving.

It's the same as before: C-p skips lines 5 and 3 with rear-nonsticky
nil, does not skip with rear-nonsticky t, and (forward-line -1) does not
skip regardless of rear-nonstickiness.  I tested on GNU Emacs
(i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.12.0) of 2007-11-21.  Could the
differences between what you and I see be related to the EOL difference
between MS Windows and Unix?  Can other users of these systems who are
following this thread try these tests and report their observations?

Steve Berman

reply via email to

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