Re: Proper behavior of C-u 3 C-v

[Emanuel Berg]

Amin Bandali wrote:

> The doc string is indeed clear, but I personally
> wouldn't have expected that behaviour. I'm curious
> if there's a particular reason why C-v deviates
> from the convention of other similar movement
> commands, where specifying a numerical ARG `n'
> would have the effect of performing that command's
> action `n' times (e.g. M-3 M-f to move forward
> three words).

Another inconsistency is

  (scroll-down 1)
  (scroll-up   1)

where one expects the byte-compiler to say, use
(scroll 1) and (scroll -1) instead, but it doesn't,
and for good reason because there isn't
a `scroll', even.

And another inconsistency is:

  (scroll-other-window-down 1)
  (scroll-other-window      1)

compared to scroll-up/scroll-down, where -up
is explicit.

But actually, I think that looks better and what
I see nothing stops you from using
(scroll-other-window -X) instead of
(scroll-other-window-down X). It is also more clear
since people have different ideas what up and down,
but just "scroll" everyone can agree means "read on".

BTW civilized scrolling, one step at a time,
including horizontally:

  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/scroll.el

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal