[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: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 20:28:10 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Hi, Glenn.

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:15:52PM -0500, Glenn Morris wrote:

> The new command `cycle-spacing' has no key-binding.

> 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.

> The next time, it removes all whitespace. The third time, it restores
> the original whitespace.

> On the other hand, `just-one-space' only does something the first time
> you call it.

`just-one-space' has a precisely defined and strong functionality.
`cycle-spacing' has lots of complicated edge cases.

> Therefore I suggest that `cycle-spacing' take the M-SPC binding
> of `just-one-space', since it provides a superset of the latter's
> functionality.

Not quite.  It's more complicated than that.

> People who do not like this can simply rebind `just-one-space' to
> M-SPC.

> Objections?

Yes.  As Eli mentioned, it's late in the day.

Also, why do we need this function?  Surely somebody adjusting her
whitespace at some place will know in advance whether she wants:
(a) 1 space;
(b) n spaces;
(c) no space,
and cycling through the possibilities to get there is an inefficient
waste of time.

There are already suitable commands and bindings for them to do each of
the things done by `cycle-spacing', namely M-SPC, C-u n M-space, M-\,
and C-_.

I don't thing we need this function.  I can't see a use case.  It seems
to violate the KISS principle.

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

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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