Re: invisible

[martin rudalics]

>>FWIW, the following seems to work: Disable point-adjustment in
>>interactive use of `next-line' and `previous-line' and apply one of my
>>earlier proposed changes.
>
>
> So IIUC replacing line-move-ignore-invisible with
> (not global-disable-point-adjustment) would solve the problem as well, right?

I don't know.  `line-move-ignore-invisible' is a user option (although I
fail to see how it's useful).  `(global-)disable-point-adjustment' is
not.  IIUC a user might want to set `line-move-ignore-invisible' to nil
in order to have C-n/C-p stop at or near invisible newlines.  In order
to make this possible I set `disable-point-adjustment' to t.  I do this
because for this particular goal the adjustment step is too clever.  But
I don't see how replacing the one by the negation of the other would
solve the problem.

>>!             (unless line-move-ignore-invisible
>>!               ;; Interactively, disable point-adjustment when
>>!               ;; `line-move-ignore-invisible' is nil.
>>!               (setq disable-point-adjustment t))
>
>
> Why not put this directly inside `line-move' so it's not duplicated?

Because I wanted to emphasize that this is for interactive use only and
`interactive-p' is tested in next-/previous-line.  If for whatever
reason people want to use next-/previous-line in a function, they should
be allowed to disable point-adjustment as they like.  But I do not have
a strong opinion about this, let's see whether my patch DTRT at all.  As
Richard mentioned earlier adjusting one thing here breaks another ...