[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: invisible
From: |
martin rudalics |
Subject: |
Re: invisible |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:09:56 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) |
>>FWIW, the following seems to work: Disable point-adjustment in
>>interactive use of `next-line' and `previous-line' and apply one of my
>>earlier proposed changes.
>
>
> So IIUC replacing line-move-ignore-invisible with
> (not global-disable-point-adjustment) would solve the problem as well, right?
I don't know. `line-move-ignore-invisible' is a user option (although I
fail to see how it's useful). `(global-)disable-point-adjustment' is
not. IIUC a user might want to set `line-move-ignore-invisible' to nil
in order to have C-n/C-p stop at or near invisible newlines. In order
to make this possible I set `disable-point-adjustment' to t. I do this
because for this particular goal the adjustment step is too clever. But
I don't see how replacing the one by the negation of the other would
solve the problem.
>>! (unless line-move-ignore-invisible
>>! ;; Interactively, disable point-adjustment when
>>! ;; `line-move-ignore-invisible' is nil.
>>! (setq disable-point-adjustment t))
>
>
> Why not put this directly inside `line-move' so it's not duplicated?
Because I wanted to emphasize that this is for interactive use only and
`interactive-p' is tested in next-/previous-line. If for whatever
reason people want to use next-/previous-line in a function, they should
be allowed to disable point-adjustment as they like. But I do not have
a strong opinion about this, let's see whether my patch DTRT at all. As
Richard mentioned earlier adjusting one thing here breaks another ...
- Re: invisible, (continued)
- Re: invisible, Richard Stallman, 2007/11/28
- Re: invisible, martin rudalics, 2007/11/29
- Re: invisible, Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/29
- Re: invisible, martin rudalics, 2007/11/29
- Re: invisible, Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/29
- Re: invisible, martin rudalics, 2007/11/29
- Re: invisible, martin rudalics, 2007/11/30
- Re: invisible, Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/30
- Re: invisible,
martin rudalics <=
- Re: invisible, Stefan Monnier, 2007/11/30
- Re: invisible, martin rudalics, 2007/11/23