|
| From: | Ken Manheimer |
| Subject: | Re: need option so line-move-to-column ignores fields, plus patch |
| Date: | Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:56:58 -0400 |
On 9/4/06, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> So, can we find specific cases where some other incompatible behavior
> is positively desirable? It would be useful for people to look
> for the other facilities that use fields, to see what cases there are
> where we would not want this behavior.
i don't expect line-move-ignore-fields to be used everywhere, or even
as the default.
I am looking for a way to avoid the need for such an option,
a way to make the command DTRT for everyone without need for
parameters. And I think I have found one.
I would like people to help me check whether this solution really works.
i would want motion from the structure (left-hand)
side of a line (corresponding to the minibuffer's prompt), to another
line with structure, to remain in the structure side if the columns
line up.
Since the minibuffer has only one prompt, this case cannot occur
in the minibuffer. Therefore, if we make C-n and C-p do this,
the change need not have any effect on the minibuffer.
So far I see no problem with my proposal as modified by your request.
But what about comint? It uses fields for the prompts, right?
Would this behavior be right for comint?
offhand, that policy is not what i prefer, however. i do not see it
necessary to retain the cursor within the structure area or the
content area when moving between lines.
In that case, what behavior WOULD you prefer?
the one i've been suggesting - retention of the column on line-move regardless of fields. there are subtle pluses and minuses to sticking within the structure/content field areas. the boundary between the two wavers with outline depth, so that the cursor may be bumping against it repeatedly as you traverse lines. having the cursor column varying with the boundary could be just right, or it could be distracting and even annoying. i just don't know, and would have to try it to find out. i do know that just retaining the column works well. further, allout already offers retention of the cursor on the item bullet position when doing hot-spot navigation (where allout commands are available as shortcut keys, without the prefix or control-qualification, when the cursor is situated on the bullet character). that makes structure/content-area segregated line-moves somewhat redundant. pure line-move column retention are complementary, however. that is why i would like to have the latter at least as an option. -- ken address@hidden http://myriadicity.net
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |