Re: C-n and C-a

[Karl Fogel]

Richard M Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> The new definitions of C-n and C-p seem to work reasonably
> conveniently with the very long lines that non-Emacs-users often
> write.  However, it is very counterintuitive that C-a and C-e have not
> been changed in the same way.  They keep surprising me, and I have to
> work hard to remember not to use them to do the natural thing.
>
> I think they too should be changed to operate on screen lines;
> that's a necessary part of the change that was already made.
>
> If C-a and C-e are changed this way, we would want some way to go to
> the beginning and end of the real line.  Here are some ideas:
>
> * Make C-u C-a and C-u C-e do this.  I suspect nobody uses
> those combinations with their current meanings.

That sounds great.  I've literally never used C-u C-a or C-u C-e in
their current meanings (don't know about other people, though).

I like this solution much better than C-a C-a (which some others have
suggested), or having C-a go to non-visual line-beginning when point is
already at the visual beginning.  Doing either of those would require
one to keep state in mind when writing or executing macros; I think they
would be bug-prone.

-Karl