Re: line-move-visual

[Bastien]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

> Bastien <address@hidden> writes:
>> There are two problems: (1) the inconsistency you are pointing at
>> between C-n/C-p and C-a/C-e (Tassilo also mentioned this) and (2)
>> whether `line-move-visual' should default to nil.
>>
>> Solving (1) would be good, and the two issues are independant.
>
> Please read the previous discussions.
>
> The "C-n/C-p and C-a/C-e inconsistency" of the default settings is 
> intentional.
>
> Having used the current defaults for a fairly long period, and of course
> "traditional" emacs for untold eons before that, I've come to the
> conclusion that Chong made the right choice.
>
> I get annoyed sometimes too by C-n/C-p's behavior -- but the traditional
> behavior annoyed me _more_ often.  I think there is _no_ setting which
> will please all people, or even one person all the time, but the current
> compromise seems to be pretty decent.
>
> I know some people will feel different "annoyance tradeoffs" than me,
> but for those complaining about the change, I at least hope you've given
> yourself some time to get used to it -- way too often, people seem to
> fire off a flame about some change about 34 seconds after they've
> installed the new version implementing it!

I don't read any argument against an official poll, and this is just
what I'm asking for.

PS: I've been using this default for a while.  Since I'm using a lot
of macros, I had to switch to (setq line-move-visual nil) because I
didn't to use M-x visual-line-mode to turn it off each time.

-- 
 Bastien