Re: invisible

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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.

global-disable-point-adjustment *is* a user option.

> 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.

I must be missing something: the relationship is pretty obvious to me
since your code sets disable-point-adjustment to t (i.e. forces Emacs to
behave as if global-disable-point-adjustment were t for this one
command) if and only if line-move-ignore-invisible is nil.

>>> !         (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 ...

Since those functions are discouraged in Elisp code anyway I don't think
it matters much.


        Stefan