[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: describe-bindings: ^L, bad order, naming
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:32:35 +0200

> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:49:09 -0600 (CST)
> From: Luc Teirlinck <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> If the ^L is not displayed, how do you know that forward-page will
> move you there?

We could say that at the beginning of the buffer.

> More importantly, what the ^L is _really_ there for is to force a page
> break if the user prints the stuff off.  Obviously, it should be
> displayed as is, because the user printing it off should know that
> there is going a page break there.

??? Strange logic.  If I print the buffer (I admit I never did that;
is there someone here that did?), why should I care exactly how many
printed pages will I get?

> He should be able to remove it after C-x C-q if he does not want a
> page break there.

It sounds like you are searching low and high for any argument, no
matter how feeble, against this idea.  Do you really believe newbies
will know about C-x C-q and removing the page break?

Anyway, the user still can remove the page break, even though it's
covered by an overlay: just press DEL or Backspace or C-d.  What made
you think this would be impossible?

>    > We could use overlays to display the ^L as something more visually
>    > appealing, while leaving ^L in the buffer.
> Definitely not, for the reasons above.  If there is a ^L in the buffer,
> the user needs to know that.

We already do something similar in Emacs, although not with ^L: in
Info, for example.  I don't see how ^L is more special than the other
parts of text that we hide.

reply via email to

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