[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C-n and C-a
Re: C-n and C-a
Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:41:44 -0500
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)
> The new definitions of C-n and C-p seem to work reasonably
> conveniently with the very long lines that non-Emacs-users often
> write. However, it is very counterintuitive that C-a and C-e have not
> been changed in the same way. They keep surprising me, and I have to
> work hard to remember not to use them to do the natural thing.
> I think they too should be changed to operate on screen lines;
> that's a necessary part of the change that was already made.
How about C-k?
I personally like the new behavior, even though it is
indeed inconsistent. But if people want to change the default,
Maybe we should have a 3-value setting: fully visual-line based
operation, fully logical-line based operation, or half-assed
(visual-lines for C-n and C-p but logical-lines for the rest).
I'll let people fight over which default should be chosen.
Re: C-n and C-a, Richard M Stallman, 2009/01/30
Re: C-n and C-a, Karl Fogel, 2009/01/29
Re: C-n and C-a,
Stefan Monnier <=
Re: C-n and C-a, Juri Linkov, 2009/01/29
- Re: C-n and C-a, (continued)
- Re: C-n and C-a, Adrian Robert, 2009/01/29
- Re: C-n and C-a, Juri Linkov, 2009/01/29
- Re: C-n and C-a, Stefan Monnier, 2009/01/29
- Re: C-n and C-a, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/01/30
- Re: C-n and C-a, Juri Linkov, 2009/01/31
- Re: C-n and C-a, Stefan Monnier, 2009/01/31
- Re: C-n and C-a, Chong Yidong, 2009/01/31