[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: key-binding for cycle-spacing

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: key-binding for cycle-spacing
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 06:11:44 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Hi, Glenn.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 09:37:36PM -0500, Glenn Morris wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> >> If you have not used it, the first time you call it in a consecutive
> >> sequence, it acts like `just-one-space'.

> > Not quite.  It's more complicated than that.

> Please say how (were you referring to Johan's point?), otherwise this is
> not helpful.

If you type M-9 M-SPC, with `just-one-space' you'll end up with 9 spaces.
With `cycle-spacing', you'll usually get 9, sometime you'll get zero.

> > `cycle-spacing' has lots of complicated edge cases.

> Could you give say two examples of such cases?

One is above.  A second one is what happens if you give a different
argument on the second invocation from the first.  A third one is what
happens when there's just a tab in the buffer, which occupies one visible

> You could avoid all the extra functionality by simply not using the
> command more than once in a row (a no-op for just-one-space).

Not quite.  The first time round, `cycle-spacing''s behaviour is
different according to how much space is already there.

> > It seems to violate the KISS principle.

> So do many things. cc-bytecomp is a favourite of mine.

Yes, there are many things in CC Mode which are complicated, and believe
me, I suffer because of it.  But `cycle-spacing' is complicated at the
basic user level and doesn't seem to have any utility.

> > Please keep M-SPC bound to `just-one-space'.

> For ever, or for now?

For ever.  :-)

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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