Re: visual-line-mode

[Stefan Monnier]

> I think it depends on what you use it for.  If you are editing code,
> there is usually little overflow, and the overflow you have ends at an
> easily recognizable place, and the hard newlines carry meaning.

> If you are editing a novel where every paragraph is written without
> newlines, wrapping just being done to accommodate the editing window
> (but irrelevant for the result), you want to be able to edit and
> navigate with finer grained units than whole paragraphs.

Agreed.  That's why I think we need a separate minor mode for it.

So, if we consider the difference between TL (text lines) and VL (visual
lines), and also the difference between C-n/C-p and the other line
commands (C-a, C-e, C-k, others?):

It clearly makes sense to use TL for all commands (what we've done until
now), and it also makes sense to use VL for all commands (as provided by
David Reitter's code).  I don't think it makes sense to use TL for
C-n/C-p and VL for the rest.  But should we support the combination of
VL for C-n/C-p and TL for the rest?  That's what I've been using
recently and I like it, so I think it makes sense.  I'm even tempted to
make it the default.  But its internal inconsistence is
a bit troublesome.


        Stefan