Re: [Nano-devel] softwrapping without varying row length

[David Ramsey]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Benno Schulenberg
<address@hidden> wrote:
> If you think you can make it work (also on the statusbar), go ahead.

I'm not sure it's worth the effort.  See below.

> Don't know.  I don't know yet if I want nano to have this
> "placeholder" behavior.  It's kind of nice that whenever you type a
> character (whether one or two columns wide), the /whole/ affected line
> shifts right, all the softwrapped chunks.  But it's kind of weird, and
> different from what people might know from other editors.

You're in charge, of course, but... if I had to choose, I'd avoid
putting the placeholder behavior in, and instead focus on fixing it
properly the first time, even if it took a bit more time and coding
effort to do so.  This would mean that two-column Unicode characters on
the screen edge would still glitch in softwrap mode in the meantime, but
they've done that since softwrap mode was first added back in 2009, so
it can wait a bit longer if it's waited this long.  We're not ignoring
the problem in the meantime.

>> I get the softwrap navigation changes up to but not including the
>> variable-length chunk changes up to your standard and in git,
>
> Let's focus on that.

Okay.

>> and then we hash out how to get the variable-length chunk changes up
>> to your standard and in git so that nano can both properly emulate
>> vim/emacs and break lines on whitespace?  (Which would require
>> ripping this change out and replacing it, unfortunately, since the
>> two approaches conflict.)
>
> Later.  One step at a time.

Obviously.  For the record, moving the softwrap calculations into
functions was the first part of the variable-length changes, not the end
of the non-variable length ones.

(When we get to the variable-length chunk changes, you'll have to give
me some idea of what to name the softwrap calculation functions, because
I thought you'd object more to using wrappers that extensively, but if
you think the names are incomprehensible [which I don't understand,
since "chunk" and "leftedge" are terminology you insisted I use], you'll
have to tell me what terminology you're thinking of, since I can't
guess.  No offense.)