[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: C-n and C-a

From: Juri Linkov
Subject: Re: C-n and C-a
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:32:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)

>> 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.
> I mentioned this inconsistencies before in
> <address@hidden>.  I was told that the current behavior
> was due to a consensus.  But still I don't like it, so I switch on
> `visual-line-mode' where everything operates consistently on screen
> lines.

In addition to inconsistencies and lack of convenient key bindings
there are also problems with the used terminology.  There are
two similar confusing names:


The former defines half-real/half-screen line motion mode,
and the latter has a name that says nothing to most users.

I think if we want to achieve simplicity and intuitiveness
then we should have a mode


with a pair of variables to define variations for key bindings
and visual appearance.

By default, `word-wrap-mode' could bind C-n/C-p and C-a/C-e to
visual line motion commands, and also provide alternative keys
for real line motion commands when `line-move-visual' is non-nil.
But the nil value of `line-move-visual' could reverse the meaning
of these key bindings.

Another variant is to define a mode


with C-n/C-p and C-a/C-e bound to visual line motion commands and
`line-move-visual' behaving as described above.  And additionally
it could provide a variable `word-wrap' to define wrapping boundaries
(word vs non-word).

Juri Linkov

reply via email to

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