Re: please make line-move-visual nil

[Andrew W. Nosenko]

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt <address@hidden> wrote:
> Setting line-move-visual on a
> per-mode basis is a excellent middle ground that will make ALL parties
> happy.

Please NO!!!!


First at all, after binding additional pair (M-down, M-up) to the
"phisical" lines motion,

In short: "magic" and unpredictable changing of behavior iis very
inconeinient.  At least I found it that.

You can argue that it would not be "magic" or unpredictable, but
indeed based on a mode or mode-deriviation.  But could you predict
(just as "stupid" user, not as mode's author), what deriviation tree
has Occur mode, for example?  Or Shell Output?  (Ok, I know that Shell
Command Output buffer has Fundamental mode, and what?)

Even for C code it is very useful for me to have visual navigation.

But I understand your point.  Moreover, some time ago I also was very
frustrated, because convinient way for "phisical" line navigation is
no less.  And solution is very simple: just give best from both
worlds: above in this thread alredy mentioned that AquaEmacs has
different bindings for C-n/C-p vs. down/up.  I also just bound
"phisical" line movements to the M-down and M-up in addition to the
"visual" on down and up, and have now conventient and similar bindings
to the both movement modes.  Try it!  Just don't throw away only
because it is unusual for you.  Try it first for some time (e.g. 1
week)!

-- 
Andrew W. Nosenko <address@hidden>