[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#5042: bug#9917: bug#5042: bug#9917: 24.0.90; Make `goto-line' consis
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#5042: bug#9917: bug#5042: bug#9917: 24.0.90; Make `goto-line' consistent with the line number from the minibuffer |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:31:58 +0200 |
> From: Juri Linkov <juri@linkov.net>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, 5042@debbugs.gnu.org,
> 9917@debbugs.gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, dmoncayo@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:19:11 +0200
>
> 2. Re-bind 'M-g g' to goto-line-relative as many asked to do
> with the reasoning that 'M-g g' should use by default the
> same numbering scheme as is displayed by display-line-numbers-mode;
Two comments:
1) display-line-numbers-mode by default behaves the same as
line-number-mode
2) display-line-numbers-mode has the display-line-numbers-widen
option which disregards narrowing, so if you want to follow
display-line-numbers-mode, you will need to heed that option as
well
> 3. Leave the existing 'M-g g' bound to goto-line, but allow changing
> the numbering scheme using a prefix arg and a user option.
I like this the best.
> Or another idea: maybe it should depend on whether
> display-line-numbers-mode is enabled or not?
That sounds wrong to me: there's no real relation between these two,
and having the same command behave differently in two buffers doesn't
sound right to me.