[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: please make line-move-visual nil

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: Re: please make line-move-visual nil
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:14:33 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.93 (gnu/linux)

>> 1 - it's far from clear which modes should use which default.
> Whoa! If that's far from clear, then it's even farther from clear that _all_
> modes should always have non-nil as the default.  Talk about sophistry!

I don't see why the two should be correlated, so I don't se the
sophistry.  AFAIK the choice bsically depends on the user's taste,
similarly to the blinking cursor.

Please give examples of modes where the choice is clear one way or the
other (sufficiently so that it should override the user's default
choice).  We can then consider them.  I still haven't seen any argument
for any particular mode, so I think it is fair to say that it is unclear
which modes should use which default.  I've seen mention that text-mode
should use a value of t, but haven't understood why that would be
a better choice there than elsewhere.

>> 2 - there is very little evidence that someone might want different
>> behavior in different buffers.

> Evidence: I'm someone who might want different behavior in different buffers.

Which behavior where?

> There is even less evidence that _everyone_ wants non-nil in _all_ buffers.

Maybe if you explain the specific harm you see, we can start reasoning
about where/when to use what.  In my use, the new default saves me the
trouble of having to worry about long wrapped lines, and that holds in
all buffers.

> This is about choosing reasonable _default_ behavior.

Thank you for repeating the obvious.  I think we are all painfully aware
of this by now.

>> 3 - Drew would come back screaming if (setq line-move-visual nil) only
>> fixes that new brain-dead behavior in some modes but not all.

> It's irrelevant whether Drew comes back screaming.  Forget the ad
> hominem appeals to the gallery and get back to reasoned argument.

This was an attempt at humor rather than an ad-hominem.  I'm sorry if
you felt attacked/ridiculed/dimished, there was no such intention.

The inflamed tone of this thread is one of the reasons why I think more
than ever that this setting is only a question of personal taste.


reply via email to

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