[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch
From: |
Chong Yidong |
Subject: |
Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch |
Date: |
Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:43:51 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> > | 1. With the cursor adjacent to the right of any bar,
> > | if you move forwards a line (^N), the cursor slips to column 0.
> > | 2. Moving backwards (^P) with the cursor in the same place, however,
> > | doesn't have this problem - it sticks near the boundary.
> >
> > #1 is clearly a bug. C-n should be symmetrical with C-p.
>
> I don't see where else the cursor can possibly go in #1.
>
> It can go to after the bar. That's where it should go.
This logic is wrong. Consider the case where there is a field' in the
region denoted XXXXXX; everywhere else, the `field' property is null.
Point is initially located at the position indicated by `|'.
|
XXXXXXXXX
Clearly, pressing C-n should move point to the start of the field.
The trouble is that the example given by Ken is a particular case
where it *looks* as though the behavior you describe makes sense; but
in the more general case, it is wrong.
> The logic of
> line-move is like this: "Try to naively move the cursor vertically
> down. If this moves us into a new field, go instead to the beginning
> of the field (if going forward) or the end of the field (if going
> backward)."
>
> I'm saying we need to change that logic, so that the results
> will be good.
>
> I think we need a concept of temporary goal fields to go with the
> temporary goal column. When you type the first line-move command
> it should record some info about the field you're in when you start.
> Then if a field with the same property appears on the line you move to,
> it should be handled as if it were -- in some sense -- "the same".
This is a feature, not a bug.
But if this behavior (i.e., treating non-contiguous fields as
identical for the purpose of line-motion) is really the behavior you
want, and we agree that it will close this bug, I can implement this
even more simply than that, by comparing `field' properties at the
relevant places inside line-move-finish.
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, (continued)
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Ken Manheimer, 2006/09/23
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Richard Stallman, 2006/09/24
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Ken Manheimer, 2006/09/24
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Richard Stallman, 2006/09/25
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Chong Yidong, 2006/09/24
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Chong Yidong, 2006/09/24
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Ken Manheimer, 2006/09/24
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Ken Manheimer, 2006/09/24
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Slawomir Nowaczyk, 2006/09/25
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Richard Stallman, 2006/09/25
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch,
Chong Yidong <=
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Ken Manheimer, 2006/09/27
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Richard Stallman, 2006/09/29
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Chong Yidong, 2006/09/29
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Richard Stallman, 2006/09/07
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Ken Manheimer, 2006/09/07
- Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Miles Bader, 2006/09/05
Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch, Ken Manheimer, 2006/09/01